Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Wandsworth (Putney Division), in the room of Samuel Samuel, esquire, deceased.—[Captain Margesson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ZANZIBAR.

CLOVE INDUSTRY.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the report of Mr. K. P. Menon on the position of the clove industry in Zanzibar; and whether he intends to publish it?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The Government of India are considering the report, and my right hon. Friend is awaiting their views. No decision has yet been taken on the question of its publication.

LAND ALIENATION BILL.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the harm likely to be caused to the Indian community in Zanzibar by the passing of the Land Alienation Bill, he will state what steps are being taken by the Government of India to protect the livelihood of Indian British subjects resident in Zanzibar?

Mr. BUTLER: The report of Mr. K. P. S. Menon, who was recently deputed to Zanzibar to inquire into and report on this Measure and other legislation affecting the interests of the Indian community, is now under the consideration of the Government of India.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Is it not a fact that Indians themselves
have approved of similar legislation in the Punjab?

Mr. BUTLER: I think it would be wiser to await the report.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

BANGALORE.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is satisfied that due weight is being given to the opposition amongst the inhabitants of Bangalore, who number 135,000 and are living under British laws and paying British taxes, to the proposed retrocession of Bangalore to Mysore; and whether there is any precedent for handing over a British community to native rule?

Mr. BUTLER: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that, in considering the question whether any portion of the Bangalore Assigned Tract should be retroceded to Mysore, the Government of India will give due weight to the views of the inhabitants concerned. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to my Noble Friend the Member for Kinross and Western Perth (Duchess of Atholl) on the 30th July.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: In view of the unsatisfying nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question at the most convenient opportunity.

RABINDRANATH TAGORE (ARTICLE).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of Bengal has given notice to the Modern Review of India that an article written by Rabindranath Tagore, entitled "On Russia," which appeared in the Modern Review last June, is highly objectionable, and that the editor has been warned that such articles must not be published in future; and, in view of the fact that no objection was taken by the Government of Bengal when this and similar articles were published in book form by this author in 1931, will he state why this alteration of policy has taken place?

Mr. BUTLER: It is the case that a warning was issued to the editor of the Modern Review in respect of an article written by Rabindranath Tagore. The
article was taken from a book called "Letters from Russia," which was published in Bengali by a local Press in 1931. This book attracted little public attention, and consequently no notice was taken of it by Government, but the translation into English of a particular chapter, which was clearly calculated by distortion of the facts to bring the British administration in India into contempt and disrepute, and its publication in the forefront of a widely read English magazine, put a wholly different complexion on the case.

Mr. DAVIES: May I take it, therefore, that the article written by this very eminent gentleman could be published in the Review if it were not distorted?

Mr. BUTLER: I have conveyed to my hon. Friend the view that this article gave a distorted view of the achievements of British rule in India, and that was the reason why this action was taken.

MILITARY ACADEMY, DEHRA DUN.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that much dissatisfaction is felt in India at the fact that the number of candidates admitted to the Indian military academy at Dehra Dun is limited to 60; and whether he is satisfied that this number is sufficient to carry out the declared policy of the Government of India with regard to the Indianisation of the Army?

Mr. BUTLER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second part, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the number is sufficient.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM (CHAMBER OF PRINCES).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will suggest to the Viceroy the desirability of summoning the Chamber of Princes as soon as possible after the 21st November to enable the members to discuss the conclusions of the report of the Joint Select Committee?

Mr. BUTLER: I understand that the Viceroy has already been in correspondence with His Highness the Chancellor of the Chamber of Princes as to a convenient date for a meeting of the Chamber after the publication of the
report of the Joint Select Committee, and that the Chancellor was to consult his colleagues of the Standing Committee of the Chamber. I have not heard the result of the consultation, but I have no doubt that the Viceroy has in mind the points raised in my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (ASSYRIANS).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the position as regards the settlement of Assyrians from Iraq in British Guiana?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 1st November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald). The mission of investigation has now arrived in British Guiana, but some considerable time must still elapse before its report is received.

Mr. DAVIES: In view of the very urgent necessity of doing something for these people, and of the universal impression which has been created that we have let them down very badly, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the matter?

Mr. EDEN: I am not prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's impression as being any kind of accurate statement of the facts. Everything possible is being done in this matter, but clearly, if the mission is to do its work, it had better do it properly while it is there. It will take at least three months to carry through the investigation.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

LENA GOLDFIELDS, LIMITED.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement to the House as to an agreement having been arrived at between the Russian Soviet Government and Lena Goldfields, Limited, and as to the nature of the same?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Yes, Sir; an agreement was signed at Moscow on the 4th November by the representatives of the company and of the, Soviet Government. I understand that it is
subject to ratification by the company's shareholders, and provides for the payment by the Soviet Government of £3,000,000 over a period of 20 years. £50,000 will be paid down on ratification, and there will be 20 instalments of £92,500, followed by a further 20 of £55,000 to be paid at six-monthly intervals beginning on the 1st May next.

Sir W. DAVISON: Do I understand that this British company has been obliged, on the recommendation of the British Government, to settle for a sum of £3,000,000, which is to be paid over 20 years, in lieu of an arbitral award of £13,000,000?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say exactly how much of that £3,000,000 will go to Germany and the United States and how much to Great Britain?

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Did my hon. and gallant Friend say that this agreement is subject to ratification by the Soviet Government?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As regards the first supplementary question, the company recognise that the prospects of any settlement at all without the assistance they received from His Majesty's Government would have been slight.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say what is the present value of this payment by instalments?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I have a reply to my question?

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether questions regarding freedom of religion and famine relief were discussed with the representatives of the Soviet Government before they were admitted to membership of the League of Nations; and what is the present position with regard to these matters between the Soviet Government and Foreign Powers?

Mr. EDEN: The British delegation at Geneva took part in no discussions with the Soviet representatives prior to the entry of the Soviet Government into the League of Nations on the subjects mentioned by my hon. Friend in the first
part of his Question. I am not in a position to say whether these subjects have been discussed between the Soviet Government and Foreign Powers.

Sir W. DAVISON: Having regard to the prominent part which the British Government take at Geneva, surely the questions of religious freedom and famine relief, which are questions of such great importance, must have been raised? Is my right hon. Friend aware that these questions were specially raised by the American Government, and that they received a satisfactory reply?

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of exaggeration about this matter; and may I ask him whether he will consider the advantage of extending his journeys to this jurisdiction to get personal acquaintance with the facts?

Mr. EDEN: The only question with which His Majesty's delegation was concerned was the entry of the Soviet Government into the League.

Sir A. KNOX: Did the Soviet Government comply with Article 23 of the Covenant of the League of Nations?

Mr. EDEN: The Soviet Government, in applying for membership, clearly indicated that it would undertake all the obligations which other members of the League have undertaken.

Sir A. KNOX: Are the members of the League satisfied that the Soviet Government have complied with Article 23, which demands that they should give fair and humane treatment to their labour?

BRITISH EMBASSY PLATE.

Sir W. DAVISON: 22.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will inform the House of the value of the property belonging to His Majesty's Government which was stolen from the British Embassy in Petrograd in 1918; what was the nature of the property which was stolen; how much of the same has been recovered; and what was the value and nature of the property which has not been recovered and in respect of which no compensation has hitherto been paid?

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. It is assumed that
my hon. Friend is alluding to the British Embassy service of silver plate which was looted in the course of the Russian revolution. This service, which belonged to the Embassy and not to the Ambassador personally, was valued at £11,235 of which only £475 worth has been recovered and restored, and the whereabouts of the remainder is unknown. In addition it is estimated that some £900 worth of furniture was taken from the Embassy.

Sir W. DAVISON: What reason has been given by the Soviet Government for not either returning this plate or giving compensation? There is no question of it being a Government robbery because the people in the Embassy were taken to the Peter and Paul fortress, which is a Government prison.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Was this included in the jewellery presented to the "Daily Herald" in 1920?

Sir V. WARRENDER: My hon. Friend cannot expect me to answer a detailed question. I have said that the whereabouts of the plate is not at the moment known.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR SERVICES (WOMEN).

Major HILLS: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the committee appointed to consider the admission of women to the Diplomatic and Consular Services has yet presented its report; and will the report be made public?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. The report is now under consideration. When this consideration is completed, a decision will be taken as to its publication.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MANCHURIA.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any reply from the Japanese Government to the protest made by him with regard to the proposal for a monopoly of petroleum in Manchuria by the authorities of that country and the Japanese Government itself?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has received the reply of the Japanese Government to the representations made by His Majesty's Ambassador in regard to this question. This reply is at present under consideration, and in the circumstances I am unable to make any further statement at present.

Captain MACDONALD: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will be able to, make a statement?

Mr. EDEN: I am afraid I cannot.

Captain MACDONALD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with a view to ensuring that no misunderstanding with regard to the British industrial commission which recently visited Manchuria shall in any way affect injuriously British trade with China, he will make arrangements for His Majesty's Minister in Peking to convey officially to the Chinese Government and Press an intimation that the visit was strictly unofficial?

Mr. EDEN: As was explained in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) on the 5th November, an opportunity has already been taken to emphasise to the Chinese Government, through the Chinese Minister in London, the entirely nonpolitical and unofficial character of the mission. I am confident that there cannot be any misunderstanding on the point, and no further action is therefore called for.

RETAINED IMPORTS (MANUFACTUREST)

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, during the six months ended 30th September, 1934, the retained imports of manufactures other than non-ferrous metals, and oils, fats, and resins were £7,817,000 greater than in the corresponding period of last year; whether he is aware that, during the six months ended 21st October, 1933, unemployment in Great Britain declined by 398,881, whereas during the same period of this year the decrease has been only 28,560; and whether, in these circumstances, he is prepared to take steps to restrict further the increase of competitive manufactures in the interests of the employment of the British workpeople?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I am aware of the increased imports to which my hon. Friend refers. While I cannot agree that the statistics of imports and of employment are so clearly related as he suggests, I would point out that there are 279,000 more insured persons in employment to-day than there were a year ago. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer to the reply which was given to him and other hon. Members on 31st July.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do these statistics of increased employment refer to persons in the manufacturing industries?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It covers all industries.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for the manufacturing industries alone?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I am afraid I could not do that.

IMPORT DUTIES (ELECTRIC LAMPS).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now prepared to amplify the statement issued by him to the Press on 28th August last as to the decision not to give effect to the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee in respect of the additional duties on complete electric lamps; and can he indicate what concessions were obtained from Japan as a result of the decision not to give effect to the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No question of a concession from Japan arose in this connection. The imposition of higher duties on imported electric lamps has been suspended so long as the desired limitation of imports is obtained in some other way.

RUSSIA.

Sir A. KNOX: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what sums were due from the Government and trade organisations of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on 1st January last in payment for goods supplied from this country; and what sums were still due on 30th September last?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The information for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks
cannot be given, as it relates to a number of transactions with individual firms in this country. If my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the activities of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, he will be interested to know that the sums repaid on account of bills guaranteed by that Department amounted during the nine months ended 30th September, 1934, to £5,200,000.

Sir A. KNOX: Is it not necessary to know the sums still due in order to make the balance according to the Anglo-Russian Trade Agreement at the end of the year?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that, we shall be able to reach an approximate figure, but I cannot give the figures of individual firms.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a, fact that firms and co-operative societies are satisfied with the way in which their claims are being met?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot answer for the co-operative societies, but I have no doubt a great number of firms are satisfied, otherwise they would not continue to trade.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is there any case of default or apprehended default in this matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say whether there is any apprehended default, but I can say that as far as the Export Credits Guarantee Department is concerned there has been no default.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

POTATO MARKETING SCHEME.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON: 14.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many persons have been granted and refused, respectively, permits to trade in potatoes by the Potato Marketing Board under the powers conferred on them under Section 6 (e) (i) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, and Section 70 (1) of the potato scheme, to determine through whom potatoes may be sold; and whether, in making such determinations, the Board exercise their powers in a public and judicial manner after hearing the applicants or otherwise?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave on 8th November to questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) and others. As to the second part, I understand that, in considering applications, the Potato Marketing Board have had regard to the particulars furnished by the applicant himself and have consulted, where necessary, district advisory committees. Any applicant who desires his case to be reconsidered may appear before the Board. As my hon. Friend will recognise, there are obvious disadvantages in considering cases of this kind in public. I think that in many cases the applicant would not wish his business affairs to be publicly discussed.

CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 15.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any cases of fraud have arisen under the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Act; if so, will he state the number and whether proceedings have been taken against the individuals concerned; and what action is being taken to prevent any further frauds?

Mr. ELLIOT: Although in many cases the Cattle Committee find it necessary to make enquiries before payment is made, the number of cases of suspected fraud is quite small. Up to the present, no case of actual fraud has been proved and no legal proceedings have been taken. The question of taking proceedings is, however, now under consideration in two instances. With regard to the last part of the question, the arrangements for making payment under the Ad contain a number of safeguards and wide publicity has been given to the fact that any person found guilty of fraudulently obtaining money from the Cattle Fund is liable to heavy penalties.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Mr. LYONS: 16.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state the number of cases in which fines have been ordered by the Milk Marketing Board; in how many cases the public have been present; and the amounts of the penalties imposed?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am informed by the Milk Marketing Board that 413 penalties have been imposed upon registered milk producers under the provisions of the Milk Marketing Scheme, and that in the aggregate these penalties amount to £8,050. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I would refer him to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset East, on 1st November.

Mr. LYONS: Has the right hon. Gentleman now instructed the Board that all such cases should be heard in the presence of the public if the public desire to have admission?

Mr. ELLIOT: It is for Parliament and not for the Minister to instruct the Board, and instructions have already been given.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Has the Board yet decided to establish regional courts?

Mr. ELLIOT: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I promised to inquire into that, and I am not yet able to give him an answer.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Is it a fact that in the case of producer-retailers the Board have no means of collecting fines?

Mr. ELLIOT: I should require notice of that question.

LAND DRAINAGE (DON AREA).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 17.
asked the Minister of Agriculture why the proposed grant for capital drainage works in the Don area is proportionately less than grants made for similar works in other areas?

Mr. ELLIOT: My hon. Friend will remember that the Land Drainage Act, 1930, although it authorised the Minister to make grants towards expenses incurred by catchment boards in improvement of existing works or construction of new works, did not prescribe the rate or basis of such grant. Every application is, therefore, considered on its merits in accordance with the procedure outlined in the Ministry's circular letter to catchment boards of 24th March last, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy. The offer of a grant of 20 per cent. of approved loan charges which was made by the Ministry on 11th October, 1934, to the Yorkshire Ouse Catchment Board has been accepted by the board.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many county boroughs are still complaining of the smallness of this grant, and, should there be any chance of the work being held up, will he insist on that grant being increased and the work carried out?

Mr. ELLIOT: The board have accepted the grant already, and there is no further question. As to complaints of its smallness, I never heard of a case where resolutions were passed about the largeness of a grant.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the county boroughs are meeting at the House and discussing the smallness of the grant?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have no doubt they are discussing that and the smallness of many other grants.

Mr. CHORLTON: If it be possible to combine the drainage scheme with a water supply scheme, will the right hon. Gentleman see that it is done?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

BOGUS TELEGRAMS.

Mr. GOLDIE: 18.
asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the case of a resident at Warrington whose relatives were recalled from holiday by the receipt of a bogus telegram alleging that he had sustained serious injuries; and whether, in view of the frequency of similar abuses of the telegraphic system, he is prepared to introduce legislation making it a criminal offence to despatch a telegram, the contents whereof are to the knowledge of the sender false, with intent to cause damage, inconvenience or anxiety to the recipient?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am having inquiries made into this case, and will then give consideration to the question whether any alteration in the law is necessary.

TELEGRAPH RATES.

Mr. LYONS: 19.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can now introduce a reduction in the cost of inland telegrams?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave in the House on the 1st of this month to a question by
my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Brigadier-General Nation).

Mr. LYONS: Is any information as to the possibility of a reduction likely before Christmas

Sir K. WOOD: Not before Christmas.

TELEPHONE APPARATUS.

Mr. DREWE: 20.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that telephone installation is being held up owing to the difficulty of getting the necessary Apparatus from the manufacturers; and whether he can take steps to prevent this occurring in the future?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of delay in the supply of apparatus attributable to the manufacturers, but I am sorry that some difficulties have arisen in completing a small exchange in, the constituency of my hon. Friend owing to the development of a new type of exchange. I am taking steps to accelerate this matter as far as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGENT'S PARK.

Mr. BURNETT: 21.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether it is proposed to obstruct permanently with the recently placed wooden garden seat the entrance to the side alley way leading out of the small garden immediately behind the Hylas garden of St. John's Lodge, Regent's Park, or whether he will keep open as before the alley way entrance and place garden seats in the curved recesses of the alley way, as well as in the small garden behind the Hylas garden?

Sir V. WARRENDER: The seats in the St. John's Lodge Garden are About to be removed to store for the winter months, and my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works will give careful consideration to my hon. Friend's suggestions before they are replaced next year.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (FOREST DEPARTMENT).

Mr. PERKINS: 23 and 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether any Europeans employed in the forest department in Ceylon who have been dismissed have been replaced by Ceylonese during the last 12 months;
(2) what reduction has been made in the European staff employed in the forest department of Ceylon during the last 12 months; and on what grounds these reductions were made?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): A reduction by two in the number of Assistant Conservators of Forests was agreed to by the late Governor as a measure of retrenchment, and it was consequently necessary to retire two European officers on pension. These officers have Rot been replaced by Ceylonese, and no appointment to the grade of Assistant Conservator could be made until either further vacancies occur or further provision is made for additional posts in this grade.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

DEATH OF MRS. TAYLOR, MANCHESTER (INQUIRY).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is now able to state if the findings consequent upon the inquiry into the death of Mrs. Taylor, of Manchester, are to be published; and, if so, when?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend has received the report in question. Publication of it would be contrary to the established practice in such cases. He proposes to communicate fully on the matter with the city council of Manchester at whose request he caused the inquiry to be made.

Mr. DAVIES: Is it not the universal practice to publish the findings in such cases, and, if so, what reason can be given for not disclosing the findings in this case?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The report to the Minister is confidential, but the findings will be communicated to the council, and it will be for them to decide whether publication is necessary.

Mr. DAVIES: May I take it that there will be no objection to the city council publishing the findings when they receive them?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That is a matter that is entirely within their discretion. They asked us to hold a public inquiry.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his chief to look into the case again as to the publication of these reports I think that on at least two or three occasions reports made by local government and Ministry of Health Inspectors on the business of Poplar were not only published but were very widely read and commented upon.

RURAL WATER SUPPLIES (GRANTS).

Mr. CHORLTON: 30.
asked the Minister of Health how much of the £1,000,000 grant to assist rural water supply schemes has so far been allocated, not counting any other contribution from county council, rural, or other authority?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The amount so far allocated is £302,000 for schemes of an estimated capital cost of £2,100,000.

Mr. CHORLTON: Will my hon. Friend take steps to urge on the development of water supply as this figure is very disappointing having regard to the time that has gone by and the allocation of the £1,000,000?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It may be a disappointment to my hon. Friend, but he does not realise what has been going on. In the last 12 years £5,000,000 has been spent on capital works in rural areas and in the last eight months £2,000,000 has been allocated. The progress is extremely satisfactory.

Mr. CHORLTON: No.

Mr. LEVY: When will my hon. Friend be in a position to make a statement to the House on the country's water supply, which is so urgently in need of reorganisation?

Sir PERCY HURD: Can the hon. Member say how many schemes are in progress?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Just over £600,000 worth of schemes are now being considered in addition to those already approved.

Mr. LEVY: May I have an answer to my question?

WHITECHURCEI MENTAL HOSPITAL (NURSE'S SUPERANNUATION CONTRIBUTIONS).

Mr. THORNE: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that Miss F. M. Thomas was employed as a nurse at the Whitechurch Mental Hospital for nearly seven years, during which time she paid £19 in contributions to the superannuation fund; that she then worked two years at the Swansea Mental Hospital and afterwards got married; that she received from the Swansea Mental Hospital committee as returned contributions £7, and that she applied to the Whitechurch Mental Hospital committee for the return of her contributions there, but this committee has refused to do so; whether he will inquire why the contributions have been refused; and what action he intends taking in the matter?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is not aware of any provision in the Asylums Officers' Superannuation Act, 1909, enabling the Cardiff visiting committee to return the contributions. The visiting committee were informed on the 20th ultimo that, if they desire to return the contributions, my right hon. Friend would be prepared to sanction the expense in the exercise of his powers under the Local Government Act, 1933.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that in all the schemes under the Superannuation Act of 1929 there is a provision which gives the local authority the right to return not only the contributions, but, in some cases, a certain amount of interest.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The law is that the contributions can be returned in respect of superannuation only in respect of the last mental hospital in which the applicant served, but prior to that there is no legal sanction.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (ESSINGTON).

Mrs. WARD: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the existence of a great shortage of houses for the working classes in Essington, in the Cannock rural district; and whether he is satisfied that steps are being taken to deal with the situation?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Representations have recently been received from the parish council of Essington to the effect
that further houses are needed in the parish. My right hon. Friend is causing inquiry to be made into the matter and will inform my hon. Friend of the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (CRUISER TENDERS).

Miss WARD: 33.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the contract for two cruisers for which tenders have been invited have yet been placed; and, if so, to which firms the orders have been allocated?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Captain Euan Wallace): The tenders are still under consideration and the contracts in question have not yet been allocated.

Miss WARD: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say when we are likely to be told when the orders are to be allocated?

Captain WALLACE: I think that I am safe in saying that it will be very shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (MILK SUPPLY SCHEME).

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: 34.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what difficulties have arisen in the administration of the milk-in-schools scheme; and if they have been satisfactorily settled?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): The initial stages of the scheme, as was perhaps inevitable considering its magnitude, have given rise to a number of questions. The details, however, are technical and somewhat involved and could not be dealt with adequately within the limits of question and answer. If my hon. Friend desires information on any particular point and will put down a question, I shall be happy to do my best to answer him. With regard to the second part of the question, it is hoped that any difficulties presented will be satisfactorily adjusted at an early date.

Mr. DUNCAN: 35.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many children in London are now having a daily glass of milk as a result of the new milk-in-schools scheme; and what is the total number of children in London having milk in the schools

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My Noble Friend understands that as the result of a special inquiry made by the Local Education Authority for Landon shortly after the scheme came into force, it was found that about 364,000 children in their area were then receiving milk under voluntary schemes, and about 26,900 children through the Local Education Authority's arrangements under the Education Act, a total of 390,900. Prior to the introduction of the scheme the corresponding figures were approximately 100,000 children and 25,000 children, a total of 125,000 children.

Mr. DUNCAN: Does my hon. Friend anticipate that as the months go by there wilt be a progressive increase in the number of children who drink milk?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I hope so.

Mr. WEST: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the house what proportion of children are now taking this milk daily?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The average attendance in the public elementary schools of London during the year 1932–33 was about 508,000 and therefore I should say that about 75 per cent. of the children are now taking milk.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the price charged to the children receiving the milk in the schools is the same all over the country, or can the local councils exercise discretion in the matter?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I think that it is part of the scheme that it should be the same all over the country.

Mr. DUNCAN: 36.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will make a statement regarding the success of the milk-in-schools scheme?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My Noble Friend is afraid that for the next few weeks, and until the Milk Marketing Board's returns for October have been analysed, it will not be possible to make any detailed statement as to the success of the scheme. There is no doubt, however, that it has met with a very encouraging reception and that there has been a very great increase in the amount of milk consumed by the children in school.

Mr. WEST: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to the
effect of the milk scheme on the health of the children?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I hope to get that information later on.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

EXPERIMENTAL UNIFORM.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 38.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will make a statement regarding the proposed new Army uniforms?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The practical trials of the experimental uniform were only recently completed, and I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the decision of the Army Council.

RECRUITS UNDER AGE.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW (for Mr. PETHERICK): 37.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office with regard to the practice in cases where the age given at the time of enlistment of a recruit in His Majesty's Army is afterwards found on reference to the birth certificate to be incorrect, owing to a genuine error on the part of the recruit, whether the instruction laid down by the Army Council is still enforced; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have the instruction altered?

Mr. HACKING: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to recruits enlisting as men for whose discharge an application is made and who are proved by their birth certificates to have, on enlistment, misstated their real age and to be either under 17 or between 17 and 18 years of age. In the former case a free discharge is allowed if it is applied for before the recruite reaches the age of 17, and in the latter case, when there are special compassionate grounds. I see no reason for altering the regulations on this point.

Mr. LOGAN: Am I to understand that it is now to be put into practice by the War Office? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a short time ago the same question was put and the reply was that it could not be agreed to?

Mr. HACKING: It is not a question of putting it into practice. It is the existing practice.

Mr. LOGAN: Am I to understand that in a case which I brought to the notice
of the War Office, where it was not put into practice, the boy will be released?

Mr. HACKING: Certainly. If we have information before the youth reaches the age of 17, he will be discharged.

Mr. THORNE: Has the recruiting officer to get the permission of the parents before the youth is properly taken?

Mr. HACKING: No, Sir. The position is that it is an offence for a youth to give the wrong age, and every precaution is taken by the recruiting officer to ascertain, as far as he can, that the age is correct. If it can be discovered that the youth is under 17 years of age and that fact is found out before he reaches the age of 17, he is discharged.

Mr. THORNE: Would not the recruiting officer be able to find out the proper age if it were obligatory on the parents to give permission?

Mr. HACKING: That is a very delicate matter and there are various reasons which would make the practice undesirable. For instance, if a birth certificate had to be provided, some of these youths who are illegitimate might have their future careers spoilt by being prevented from going into the Army.

Mr. LOGAN: I have recently paid out £20 in regard to a case. Will the Army authorities return my £20? I brought a certificate proving the age of the boy. Am I to understand that I can get my £20 back now?

Oral Answers to Questions — PROBATION OF OFFENDERS ACT.

Sir A. WILSON: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied that the circulars issued by his Department as to the application of the Probation of Offenders Act and as to the infliction of fines in lieu of imprisonment are understood and remembered by the Justices of the Peace in England and Wales?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I have no reason to think that Justices are unmindful of the suggestions which have been made from time to time by my Department as to the use where possible of methods other than imprisonment in dealing with offenders who come before them, and the wide use
of such methods is reflected in the criminal statistics. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, however, it is for the Court to decide whether or not a fine or probation is appropriate to the circumstances of any individual case, and it must not be assumed that, where such methods have not been adopted, the Justices have omitted to consider them.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Will the Home Secretary call the attention of the magistrates to the cases where very heavy sentences are imposed on any persons for trivial offences?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. I have general powers in the matter, but not to interfere.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED PRISONERS.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: 41.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is the practice to withhold from a convict or prisoner on his release from prison any money sent to him anonymously through the prison governor; and, if so, what is the total amount of money detained by the Prison Commissioners in these circumstances during the last three years; and how are these sums ultimately disposed of?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Anybody who wishes to send money to a prisoner for a legitimate purpose without disclosing his name to the prisoner can do so through the Governor or the Prisoners Aid Society. It was, however, found that money was being sent anonymously in circumstances which suggested that the purposes were illegitimate, and for this reason it was necessary to make the rules to which the hon. Member refers. Whenever possible, the money is returned to the sender, but, if the prisoner declines, or is unable, to give an address, it is confiscated. Since this order came into operation in Decembert last, £24 17s. 6d. has been so confiscated and appropriated to Appropriations-in-Aid, but the question is under consideration whether any money confiscated in future cases be given to the organisations which assist prisoners on release.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (ELECTRIFICATION).

Mr. CADOGAN: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has considered
the petition from the councils of the boroughs of Finchley, Hornsey and Hendon, and the urban district councils of Barnet, East Barnet Valley, Friern Barnet and Wood Green, advocating the immediate electrification of that part of the system of the London and North Eastern Railway which serves the areas of these local authorities; whether he has referred the petition for consideration to the London and North Eastern Railway Company and the London Passenger Transport Board; and, if so, whether he can give any information as to their replies?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The answer to the first two parts of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative. As regards the third part, I am informed that the Standing Joint Committee of the Main Line Railway Companies and the London Passenger Transport Board have decided that a scheme for the electrification of the Great Eastern Suburban lines based on Liverpool Street would take priority over a scheme for electrifying the lines radiating from King's Cross, but my hon. Friend will be aware that these Matters are not in any way under my control.

Mr. CADOGAN: In view of the hopelessly inadequate travelling facilities in these districts, will the Minister be prepared to reopen the matter with the undertakers concerned, in order to expedite the schemes suggested in the petition?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: My hon. Friend may be assured that I will do anything in my power. I have done what I could by representing this matter to the London Passenger Transport Board. I cannot exceed my powers.

Mr. CADOGAN: Can the Minister reopen the matter?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by "reopen" it. If I can give any assistance in any practical way that he can suggest, I shall be only too happy to do so.

Mr. HANNON: Is the hon. Member aware that the electrification of the lines radiating from the old Great Eastern Railway line has been under consideration for years, that repeated promises have been made in this House that schemes would be undertaken, and that
his predecessors in office have frequently brought influence to bear upon the company. Can he say when we shall have some steps taken in the interests of the people who travel in the district?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member must be aware of the statutory position. The London Passenger Transport Board is the proper authority in this matter, and I am not empowered to exercise any pressure upon them. I have done what I could by representing the views of my hon. Friend to the Board.

WESTERN AVENUE.

Sir A. KNOX: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport what progress is being made with the construction of the Western Avenue; and when he expects that this road will be completed?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Approximately 6 miles of the Western Avenue in the Counties of London and Middlesex have been completed, and work is in progress upon a 4½ mile length between Greenford and Hillingdon. I have now offered grants to the Middlesex and Bucks County Councils towards the cost estimated at about £350,000 of completing the Westernmost portion of this arterial road. This last section involves engineering works of considerable magnitude, including the construction of a viaduct and several bridges, and it would be difficult to estimate the date when the road will be completed, but I have no reason to doubt that the highway authorities concerned will shortly complete arrangements for the prompt execution of the work.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the hon. Member take into consideration the fact that this road has been under construction for over 10 years and is very urgently desired?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think my answer proves that I have taken what steps I could.

Mr. WEST: Can the Minister inform the House what progress has been made with the eastern end of the road, from Shepherds Bush into Kensington?

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the Minister aware that the eastern end is the much more important part, and that there is a complete block down Wood Lane. What is stopping traffic is the fact that there is no bridge across the railway and that
the traffic is pushed down Wood Lane through Shepherds Bush to Notting Hill Gate.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will take into consideration the views of my hon. Friends and look into the matter.

Mr. WEST: Is the hon. Member aware that this scheme has been under consideration for 35 years? When will a conclusion be reached?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have shown that I have taken steps to make progress in the matter.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Will the Minister see that no ribbon development takes place?

ACCIDENTS (COVENTRY-DUNSTABLE ROAD).

Mr. BANFIELD (for Mr. DAVID ADAMS): 44 and 46.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) the number of drivers and drivers' mates on commercial vehicles killed and injured on the main road between Coventry and Dunstable during the last three years for which statistics are available;
(2) the number of collisions occasioned on the main road between Coventry and Dunstable in which commercial vehicles were involved and in which one of the vehicles was stationary or about to leave the roadside?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISCAL POLICY.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the imports of manufactured goods into this country continue to increase despite the operations of the Tariff Advisory Committee, he will take steps to consider the whole effect of existing legislation in this respect with a view to an early alteration of policy, which would make the general system of protection more effective?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I have no reason to think that the home market cannot be adequately protected under existing powers.

Captain MACDONALD: In view of the very large increase in imported manu-
factured goods in recent months, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the present method of imposing tariffs is sufficiently flexible to safeguard the country's trade balance?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is the advice I have on the matter.

Mr. DAVID MASON: In view of the fact that the President of the Board of Trade has informed us that there is a large increase in the number of those employed, will the Prime Minister consider very carefully whether any alteration is necessary on the lines suggested?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILI (BRITISH BONDHOLDERS).

Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chilean Government has yet made a definite offer in cash, or otherwise, to terminate its default to British investors in the Chilean Government's bonds originally offered for subscription in London; and if he will inform the House whether the proposed composition is acceptable and when it will become operative?

Mr. EDEN: The question of the settlement of Chilean indebtedness is one which should be arranged by negotiation between the Chilean Government and interests representing the bondholders concerned. No definite offer has yet been made by the Chilean Government, though I understand that a Bill, intended to provide for a partial resumption of the debt service, has been laid before the Chilean Senate.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Does that mean that there will be a unilateral arrangement which will be forced by the Chilean Government upon her, British creditors?

Mr. EDEN: No. It means that it is impossible to express any opinion upon the merits of the scheme until a definite offer has been made to the bondholders.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE COLLEGE (STUDENTS).

Mr. WEST (for Mr. WILMOT): 40.
asked the Home Secretary when he anticipates that the cadets who first began their training at the new police officers' college will be ready to begin their duties as officers?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It is anticipated that the first students from the police college will be ready to begin their duties as officers about the beginning of 1936.

Mr. WEST: Am I to understand that these new officers will begin as chief constables?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Some of them may.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAAR POLICE FORCE (RECRUITMENT).

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether British ex-officers are being recruited as police officers for the Saar; if so, on whose responsibility this recruitment is taking place; and whether it is being done with the sanction of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The position is that, acting under a Resolution adopted by the Council of the League of Nations on the 4th June last, the Secretary-General of the League recommended the members of the League on the 3rd September to facilitate the task of the Saar Governing Commission in recruiting additional personnel outside the Saar for its police forces during the plebiscite period. In response to this recommendation a number of applications for employment which were received from ex-officers were forwarded to the Saar Governing Commission, after preliminary enquiry on certain practical points, such as previous police experience and ability to speak German and French: the intention being to eliminate useless applications.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether the statement that has appeared in the Press is correct, namely, that recruitment is being made through the Foreign Office and the War Office? That was the information we gave in putting the Question. What I want to get at is whether the statement that has appeared in the Press to-day, that recruitment is being carried on secretly and that other Governments are not taking part in it, is correct; and also whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us the total number asked for by Mr. Knox and how many of that number we, the British Government, are expected to recruit?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry but I have not seen the statement, except in a casual way and at the last minute, published in the Press to which
the right hon. Gentleman refers. I believe it was sent to the Foreign Office, but I was only able to have a glance at it. The statement that recruitment is being secretly conducted by either the Foreign Office—I want to make it comprehensive—or the War Office, or both, is absolutely untrue. The figures which have been given to me to-day show that out of about 20 ex-officers recruited only two are of British nationality; the others come from other countries. It is not true to say that no other country is helping. The help we are giving is limited strictly to the conditions explained by me in my answer.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I ask whether we are to take it that Britain is invited to make a contribution to a certain quota and that other nations will make a similar quota; further, whether in the absence of a response from other countries to this force we would also withdraw our quota?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for putting that question. There is no question of a quota at all. The recruitment is not up to a certain number and it is not the case that if that number is not provided in a general and voluntary way, then we are under obligation to provide up to a quota of that number. That is not the case. This is purely free recruitment. The Saar Commission requires a police force to help during the time of the plebiscite, during the last stages of the preparation of the plebiscite and while it is being taken—a purely police force—and it is known generally all over Europe that ex-officers with certain qualifications may apply for employment in that force.

Mr. LANSBURY: Are we to understand that the British Government will have no responsibility in this matter; that this is something in the nature of a contract between the person who volunteers and the Saar Commission? We as a nation are not responsible in any way for the conduct of these men or the duties they have to carry out?

Mr. DIXEY: Can we take it that there is no official recognition whatsoever by His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The expression "official recognition" is somewhat vague, and I do not want to answer questions of detail. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has
put a perfectly specific question. We have no responsibility; and there it stands. If anything should happen to these men it is not our responsibility one way or the other. We are simply facilitating as members of the League of Nations a contact between those who want employment and those who are Asking for applicants for employment.

Sir A. KNOX: Are we to understand that the Socialist party are against recruiting in England for a police force to preserve law and order?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am making no suggestion, I am asking for information, and I think the House is entitled to information in view of the statement which has appeared in the public Press.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that the Socialist party are opposed to this small application of the principle of pooled security?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir W. DAVISON: In the event of the Motion on the Paper being carried, can the Prime Minister tell us how far he proposes to go to-night, and what is the object of the suspension of the 11 o'clock Rule? At any rate, I suppose we can be assured that the Third Reading of the Betting and Lotteries Bill will not be taken to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: If we are fortunate enough to conclude the Report stage, we should not take the Third Reading of the Bill. I cannot say how far it is proposed to go, except that I hope we shall make satisfactory progress.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 212; Noes, 29.

Division No. 394.]
AYES.
[3.37 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Cross, R. H.
Horobin, Ian M.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Crossley, A. C.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Denville, Alfred
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Hurd, Sir Percy


Assheton, Ralph
Doran, Edward
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Drewe, Cedric
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Jamieson, Douglas


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Duggan, Hubert John
Ker, J. Campbell


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Knight, Holford


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Knox, Sir Alfred


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Bernays, Robert
Elmley, Viscount
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Blindell, James
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lees-Jones, John


Bossom, A. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Boulton, W. W.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Levy, Thomas


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lewis, Oswald


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe


Broadbent, Colonel John
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Glossop, C. W. H.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Burnett, John George
Goff, Sir Park
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Goldie, Noel B.
MacDonald. Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)


Butler, Richard Austen
Goodman, Colonel Albert W
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Graves, Marjorle
Magnay, Thomas


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Grimston, R. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh. E.)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hales, Harold K.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mills. Sir Frederick (Levton, E.)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hartland, George A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cook, Thomas A.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Cooke, Douglas
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Munro, Patrick
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Tree, Ronald


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Peake, Osbert
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Savery, Samuel Servington
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Pike, Cecil F.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Powell, Lieut.-Cot. Evelyn G. H.
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Pybus, Sir John
Smith, Sir R. W. (Ab'd'n. & K'dine, C.)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Somervell, Sir Donald
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isle.)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Ramsbotham, Harwald
Soper, Richard
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Rathbone, Eleanor
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wise, Alfred R.


Rea, Walter Russell
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Rickards, George William
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Storey, Samuel
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Ross, Ronald D.
Strickland, Captain W. F.



Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gd'n,S.)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W.Riding)
Thorne, William James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
West, F. R.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Orders of the Day — BETTING AND LOTTERIES BILL [Lords].

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions for the detection of offences in connection with unlawful lotteries.)

(1) If a judge of the High Court is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under this Act in connection with an unlawful lottery has been committed, and that evidence of the commission thereof is to be found at any premises or place specified in the information, he may, on an application made by an officer of police of a rank not lower than that of inspector, grant a search warrant authorising any such officer as aforesaid named in the warrant together with any other persons named in the warrant and any other officers of police to enter the premises or place at any time within one month from the date of the warrant, if necessary by force, and to search the premises or place and every person found therein, and to seize anything found on the premises or place or on any such person which the officer has reasonable ground for suspecting to be evidence of the commission of such an offence as aforesaid.

Provided that—

(a) a search warrant shall only be issued in respect of an offence suspected to have been committed within the three months prior to the laying of the information thereof; and
(b) if a search warrant under this Act has been executed on any premises, it shall be the duty of the officer of police who has conducted or directed the search to notify the occupier that the search has taken place, and to supply him with a list of any documents or other objects which have been removed from the premises, and where any documents have been removed from any other person to supply that person with a list of such documents.

(2) No woman shall, in pursuance of a warrant issued under the last foregoing sub-section, be searched except by a woman.

(3) Anything seized under this section may be retained for a period not exceeding one month, or if within that period proceedings are commenced for an offence under this Act until the conclusion of those proceedings, and, subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of this Act conferring powers on courts dealing with offences, the Police (Property) Act, 1897 (which makes provision with respect to the disposal of property in the possession of the police), shall apply to property which has come into the possession of the police under this section as it applies to property which has
come into the possession of the police in the circumstances mentioned in that Act.—[Sir W. Davison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.43 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It will save me a good deal of explanation if I read the new Clause. It is identical with the Clause which the Government themselves eventually decided to accept and which is now included in the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. It will be in lieu of Clause 27, Amendments to which, to be proposed by the Home Secretary, stand on the Paper. The Clause reads:
(1) If a judge of the High Court is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under this Act in connection with an unlawful lottery has been committed, and that evidence of the commission thereof is to be found at any premises or place specified in the information, he may, on an application made by an officer of police of a rank not lower than that of inspector, grant a search warrant authorising any such officer as aforesaid named in the warrant together with any other persons named in the warrant and any other officers of police to enter the premises or place at any time within one month from the date of the warrant, if necessary by force, and to search the premises or place and every person found therein, and to seize anything found on the premises or place or on any such person which the officer has reasonable ground for suspecting to be evidence of the commission of such an offence as aforesaid.
It will be seen that the provisions are very wide. The Clause goes on:
Provided that—
(a) a search warrant shall only be issued in respect of an offence suspected to have been committed within the three months prior to the laying of the information thereof; and
That is to say that if someone is suspected of having done something six months or a year ago that will not entitle the police to ask for the premises to be searched:
(b) if a search warrant under this Act has been executed on any premises, it shall be the duty of the officer of police who has conducted or directed the search to notify the occupier that the search has taken place, and to supply him with a list of any documents or other objects which have been removed from the premises, and where any documents have been removed from any other person to supply that person with a list of such documents.
Here follows a new proviso and a very necessary one which does not appear in the Bill:
(2) No woman shall, in pursuance of a warrant issued under the last foregoing subsection, be searched except by a woman.
(3) Anything seized under this section may be retained for a period not exceeding one month, or if within that period proceedings are commenced for an offence under this Act until the conclusion of those proceedings, and, subject as aforesaid and to the provisions of this Act conferring powers on courts dealing with offences, the Police (Property) Act, 1897 (which makes provision with respect to the disposal of property in the possession of the police), shall apply to property which has come into the possession of the police under this section as it applies to property which has come into the possession of the police in the circumstances mentioned in that Act.
Under Clause 27, as the Home Secretary proposes to amend it, any justice of the peace if satisfied that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that premises are being used for the purpose of committing an offence under Part II, in connection with a lottery, may grant a warrant authorising any constable at any time or times within one month to enter premises if necessary by force, in order to search for and to seize and remove documents therefrom. In the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill the Government, after full discussion both here and in another place and in view of the strong objection taken by Members on both sides of the House to the powers of search which were there proposed, decided that no search should take place except under the order of a judge and that no police officer under the rank of inspector should conduct such a search. Surely the offence of being concerned in bringing lottery tickets into this country is much more venial than the offence of inciting soldiers or sailors to disaffection. If Parliament has now decided in the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill that private persons houses and premises are only to be searched on the warrant of a High Court judge, how much more should it be insisted upon, that, in the case of the comparatively minor offence of being concerned with starting a lottery or bringing lottery tickets into the country, people's houses should not be searched without admittedly good grounds for doing so?
In the case of the other Measure to which I have referred it was decided that
the best means of reassuring the public on the question of search was as I have said to provide that the search warrant should only be granted by a High Court judge. Clause 27 of this Bill in my opinion would be made worse by the Amendment to it which is on the Paper in the name of the Home Secretary. He proposes to leave out the words "named in the warrant," with the result that any constable could carry out the search. It would be a blank warrant so far as authorising a particular constable is concerned. I think it is most important that the person who is charged with the very important duty of carrying out the search should be named in the warrant. We go much further in our proposal. We say that as in the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill it should not be an officer under the rank of inspector. A search of this kind would be an onerous and unpleasant duty. It is something which should only be resorted to in cases where the evidence is very clear. To give magistrates the power to launch a constable at any time into a private home for the purpose of carrying out a search is something of which I think the House would hesitate to approve.
I do not like a provision of the kind at all with reference to such matters as the possession of lottery tickets which nobody really regards as a criminal offence but if there is to be the right of search at all it ought to be under the strictest regulations and ought not to be on the order of a magistrate but on the order of a High Court judge. We have men of different opinions as magistrates. There are magistrates who hold the views on this question of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). I have already given the instance of tickets having been sent to me and I have been told since that some people have had as many as a dozen books of tickets sent to them. If a magistrate held the views of the hon. Member for Bodmin and if somebody told him that a lot of Irish lottery tickets were lying about a person's house he might in such circumstances issue a search warrant. I would regard it as monstrous if my house were searched under those conditions. I would have a very good mind to offer a certain amount of resistance.

Mr. WEST: Did the hon. Gentleman hold those views a fortnight ago regarding the danger of the power to search?

Sir W. DAVISON: I do not think the hon. Member can have been listening to me. Before he puts any further ill-timed questions I would ask him to listen to what I am saying. I have just said that the offence to which the earlier Measure related was a much more serious offence than the one contemplated in this Bill. In the case of the offence of seducing men from their allegiance the House in its wisdom decided that certain restrictions on the right of search were necessary. That may have been right and probably was right. The hon. Member opposite and his friends in another place secured that, in connection with the suspected perpetration of a serious crime, search should only be made by an order of a High Court judge. In this case we are dealing with something which every one admits is a much less serious offence. In fact many of us do not think it is a crime at all. I believe that to be the view of an overwhelming majority of the citizens of this country. Why then, in connection with such a supposed offence, should the minions of the law be let loose at the instance of any magistrate in any part of the country, to go into the homes of the people if necessary by force to search for and to seize documents? [An HON. MEMBER: "Q.E.D."] No, it is not "Q.E.D." It is not half demonstrated yet. There are many things which the hon. Member will have demonstrated for him yet.
If the House is unwilling to accept my view on the matter may I remind them of the views expressed by an eminent person who is not concerned with politics, namely, the Archbishop of Canterbury. He had great hesitation in accepting the principle of the power to search even in the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. It was only when it was decided that the search warrant should be issued by a High Court judge and executed by an officer of a rank not less than inspector, that he felt able to give his approval to that provision. The case is a very simple one. There is nothing about which the people of this country are more jealous than that the privacy of their homes should not be invaded unless a crime has been committed. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] I say so and I am glad that hon. Members opposite agree with me. Surely they are not going to take the petty view that because they were not successful in
getting all that they wanted in connection with one Bill in which they were particularly interested, they are going to try to "get their own back" on people who do not agree with them, by opposing the same principle in connection with another Bill. I say that if there was such a provision in the earlier Bill, then a fortiori—which being interpreted means with far greater reason—there should be a provision in this Bill that the homes of people should only be searched by the order of somebody in whom the whole community has confidence.
When a person applies for a search warrant and gives evidence in support of his application it is an ex parte statement. The other person is not there. There is no opportunity of hearing the other side. Therefore, it requires a man of great judicial experience to know whether it is a proper case in which to issue a warrant or not. I think the House will agree that unless there is reason to suppose that some serious crime is going to be perpetrated we should hesitate about granting the right of search except under the strictest conditions. The alternative is to have wholesale searches of the homes of the people. It used to be said that an Englishman's home was his castle. We want to keep the truth of that as much as we possibly can, and certainly I cannot believe that any body of citizens of this country would allow an Englishman's home to be broken into without very careful consideration in order to search for lottery tickets.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. RAIKES: I beg to second the Motion.
I regret a certain amount of levity which there seems to be on the other side of the House with regard to this very important and serious question of search. All through our history the question of search warrants has been examined with very grave anxiety whenever further steps which might injure the privacy of the home have been proposed, and they ought never to be used except with most careful safeguards. It is astounding to find that a mere ordinary justice of the peace—although justices of the peace are very estimable; I am one myself—who may, of necessity, have no great experience, is to have the power, as matters stand now, to make it possible to send
the police into any private citizen's house. The position is exaggerated and surely ought to be checked, and can be checked, by the very reasonable Clause which my hon. Friend has brought forward. I appeal to the Opposition to support it. Surely there ought to be equality between the unfortunate man who may have a bundle of tickets in his house and the avowed seditionmonger who wishes to incite the troops. We only ask for justice and equality, and I am sure that the Home Secretary will assist us, in the interests of common justice.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I feel sure that the House will agree with me when I say that never was there a more flimsy case put forward in favour of any new Clause to a Bill introduced in this House. In fact, the hon. Gentleman who supported the Mover could hardly find words to express anything in favour of the Clause. He had to taunt the Opposition to find his arguments. After all, we must remember that the House of Commons has decided emphatically against big lotteries. Consequently, what the hon. Gentleman is now asking us to do is to see to it that the law shall not be put into force as far as he can persuade us to that effect. He proposes to use a steam-hammer to crack a nut. What does the proposed Clause say?
If a judge of the High Court is satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting.
Well, really, when all that is required to be done there will be no prosecution at all at any time, apparently. It is probably the intention of the hon. Gentleman that some of the Clauses of this Bill, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, shall be null and void. The hon. Gentleman is quite frank—he does not want any prosecution to ensue when anybody breaks the law in connection with big lotteries. I feel sure that I am not misinterpreting his mind when I say that. In fact, he does not want houses to be searched for lottery tickets at any time. He told us that it is not a crime, in his view, to run a lottery in this country and he has done his level best to see to it that the State should run a lottery. Consequently, he has not convinced me in favour of his proposition.
Then the hon. Gentleman used the old argument about an Englishman's home
being his castle. He did not refer to a Welshman's, Scotsman's or an Irishman's home. On that assumption the Englishman will still have a home which is his castle, but those of us who belong to the Celtic race will not be immune in the same way, I suppose. If this Clause were carried, it would not only keep inviolate the Englishman's home as his castle, but would make every rogue's den into a sanctuary, and, unless I am mistaken, that, again, is the view of the hon. Gentleman. I feel sure the Home Secretary will, not accept this Clause, and if the hon. Member divides the House upon it, I feel certain that I can see a number, if not the whole of the Members of this side, voting against it. Consequently, we shall have the very delightful picture of the hon. Gentleman opposing his own Government, and the Opposition voting with his Government.

Sir W. DAVISON: This is a Socialist Bill.

Mr. DAVIES: Finally, the hon. Member's comparison of this Bill and the Incitement to Disaffection Bill will not avail him, because if he is against searching people's houses on principle, the speech he delivered to-day ought to have been delivered on that Bill. I cannot understand any hon. Gentleman who does not believe in search warrants at all saying that on principle he will oppose them on every occasion, but votes on one occasion in favour and then opposes the same instrument on another. I cannot understand an hon. Gentleman not moving that the same instrument should apply to the two cases. Yet the hon. Gentleman to-day is trying to convince this House that on principle he objects to search warrants.

Sir W. DAVISON: On principle, I object to a search warrant unless it is proved that the law which the State has passed will be damnified, and I say that you ought not to allow any magistrate to issue a search warrant. It ought to be done by a High Court judge in a case of this kind.

Mr. DAVIES: I may be doing the hon. Gentleman a wrong, but I understood that he did not hold these views when we were dealing with the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. I feel that the Government will be strong enough to resist this Clause in spite of the presence in this
House of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). At any rate, I feel sure that the Clause will be defeated this afternoon.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: As the hon. Gentleman who moved the Clause referred to the Debate on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, and I was one who sat in Committee on that Bill, I would like to offer a few brief observations on the Clause. Comparing the search warrant Clause originally in this Bill with the Clause which the hon. Baronet proposes to substitute for it, one finds that the substituted Clause actually extends in one very important respect the power of search contained in the original Bill. The hon. Gentleman read out the whole of his Clause, which are in the exact words of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, as amended, and he laid particular emphasis on the words:
No woman shall, in pursuance of a warrant issued under the last foregoing subsection, be searched except by a woman.
The hon. Gentleman broke off in reading the Clause to say that that was very important, but under the search warrant Clause as in the Bill no one, either a roan or a woman, can be searched at all, so that the hon. Gentleman's Clause actually extends in a very important respect the powers of search originally proposed by the Government. The hon. Gentleman drew an analogy between the arguments used on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill and the power of search proposed to be conferred by this Bill. There are, however, one or two important distinctions. The first is that with regard to lotteries the power of search already exists, and has existed, I think I am right in saying, ever since the year 1802. I have not looked up the Act, because I did not anticipate the line of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I would put this question to the learned Solicitor-General, if he is going to reply: Am I not right in thinking that the search warrant contained in the Act of 1802 with regard to lotteries will still be effective after this Bill has passed? The mover of the Clause is dealing with something here with respect to what has been a power of search for over a century. In the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill there had never been a power of search, and we got along perfectly well for more than 130 years without it.
Then the hon. Gentleman went on to object to the proposed omission of the words as to the constable "named in the warrant." I feel as jealous as anyone about extending powers of search, but I cannot see that the inclusion or omission of those words really makes very much difference. If a house is to be searched by a constable, does it make much difference to the householder or owner of the premises what constable is selected? At common law there is only one example of power of search, that is, with respect to stolen goods, but it is also true, and was repeated a great many times in the Committee stage on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, that Parliament has seen fit to make exceptions to the general rule in a very large number of cases. There was some dispute as to the exact number, but I think it was eventually fixed by the learned Solicitor-General at 52. So that there are 52 cases already existing, apart from the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, where Parliament has thought fit to grant the right of search, and although a great many of us, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee upstairs, had a, great deal to say about the particular search warrant which was proposed in the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, I do not think we ever said that Parliament ought to abolish the power of search in all those 52 cases, and I do not think we ever suggested that it ought to be necessary to apply to a High Court judge in every case where a search warrant was instituted.
I have already referred to one difference between the power of search proposed with regard to lotteries and the power of search with regard to incitement to disaffection, but there is a further distinction which, I think, is a vital one, and it lies not in the gravity of the offence but in the character of the offence dealt with. In this Bill the constable, whoever it is who conducts the search, is looking for something perfectly definite. It was pointed out in the Debate on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, when comparison was drawn between this search warrant and the warrant there proposed, that a lottery ticket is a, lottery ticket, and that there cannot be very much room for error on the part of the person who conducts the search.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is a "chance"?

Mr. FOOT: I should have thought it was a specific document and it is easy to determine whether or not a document has reference to a lottery, but in the Disaffection Bill you were dealing, not with a document itself, but with a document copies of which might cause disaffection, and copies presumably included copies of a part. It was pointed out, when we were discussing Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 of that Bill, that it was impossible to say what documents or books might not have a certain effect on a soldier's mind if extracts were taken from them, and all kinds of documents and books were quoted showing that even in the works of the late Mr. Disraeli and a great many other books you could find extracts which, if they were cunningly put together or presented in a certain way, might have this particular effect upon a soldier's mind. We were dealing then with something which was and must be largely a matter of opinion, as to whether a document was likely to have a particular effect, but here, as I suggest, we are dealing with something definite and tangible. Our objections to the right of search in the Disaffection Bill were based upon the nature of the offence and the connection of the right of search with the new offence of the possession of documents, so that there is no real analogy between the power of search there proposed, and unfortunately carried, and the power with which we are now dealing.
We have never at any time suggested that the power of search should be altogether abolished or that it should be necessary to apply to a High Court Judge in every one of the 52 cases in which that power is included in Acts of Parliament. If we were to require application to a High Court Judge in this case, there is no particular reason why we should not make it necessary in every one of the 52 cases, and it would be obviously impossible, if in all those cases, where you might be dealing with very minor offences, application had to be made to the police inspector of the district, who would have to travel to London or send an affidavit to London, and apply in one way or another to a Judge in chambers and get his search warrant in that way. We should have to appoint, not two, but a dozen new Judges if we were to adopt that procedure in every case. Therefore, I suggest that there is no analogy between the two cases and that there can be no real in-
consistency when we on the Opposition side vote against this Clause.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: The Clause in the Bill on this subject of search is one of which the Opposition both above and below the Gangway apparently approve, and when I find the Opposition approving something which the Government are doing, I immediately become very suspicious. I ask myself whether the responsibility which the Government obviously are taking in this Bill is one that meets with the approval of the Opposition because they feel that it will help to create enemies against the Government. The Government say, rightly or wrongly, that an application shall be made to any justice of the peace, who shall grant a blank warrant, and that any constable shall have the right of search on that warrant and shall make forcible entry if it is resisted in any way. That is an innovation in the law as far as I have been able to gather, and it is one that will not redound to the credit of any Government. My hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) said that an Englishman's home is his castle, but it certainly will not be if the Government's Clause comes into law. The only difference that my hon. Friend is asking is that he requires an application to a High Court judge and asks that that judge shall be satisfied that a search warrant is necessary, and, further, if it be necessary, that it shall be carried out by a police inspector, somebody who, by his official position, should have more discretion than the ordinary, common or garden constable. I am not casting any aspersions on the police force, or on the constables, but the very fact of a man having been promoted to be an inspector certainly gives him a different status from that of the ordinary constable.
I support the proposed new Clause, I hope in a friendly spirit to the Government and not in opposition to them. I want them not to see how many enemies they can create among the public in this country; this Bill as it stands is doing sufficient harm to the National Government. No more irritating Measure have they brought forward, and if they are starting down the slippery slope with this Measure, they are certainly having the whole-hearted support and assistance of the Opposition, both above and below
the Gangway. As a supporter of the Government, a loyal supporter, if I may say so, I ask my right hon. Friend, before he rejects the proposed new Clause, to give it very serious consideration and to see whether he thinks the National Government should be responsible for allowing an ordinary, common or garden constable to walk into anybody's home and to search the premises for an unknown quantity, not specific, as the hon. Gentleman opposite says, but for a ticket or chance—

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Does the hon. Member suggest that the word "chance" is something intangible?

Sir W. DAVISON: We do not know what it means.

Mr. LEVY: My hon. Friend has only to look in the dictionary to find what "chance" means, and it is certainly very intangible. Nobody knows what it is. It certainly means in this case that a constable can make an exhaustive and very complete search throughout the whole of the building and the contents of it, and that is very definite. If everything else be ambiguous, that is not ambiguous, and I ask my right hon. Friend, in all seriousness and in the greatest friendliness, to consider before he puts this on the Statute Book, because it will not redound to the credit of the National Government, and it is a great pity to spoil such a marvellous record' and achievement as the Government have built up.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. WEST: I never before heard so many supporters of the Government so keen about an Englishman's home being regarded as his castle, and nobody would have thought that that was the case some two or three weeks ago, when we were discussing another Bill, but I am most of all surprised to discover in the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) such an extraordinary supporter of this principle and such a defender of the Englishman's home.

Sir W. DAVISON: Why?

Mr. WEST: Having watched the hon. Gentleman's record, locally and nationally, I should never have thought he was so keen about this old-established principle. I was very much opposed to a search warrant under the Disaffection
Bill, and I am equally opposed to search warrants being easily obtainable even under this Bill, so perhaps some hon. Members on this side are more consistent than the hon. Member opposite, who is sufficiently inconsistent to have been in favour of the principle three weeks ago and to be opposed to it now. I have been opposed to the principle on both occasions. I do not believe that it is right and proper for a search warrant to be issued by a justice of the peace in this case. I do not believe that our justices of the peace are so extraordinarily unbiased and impartial as other hon. Members seem to think. In fact, I think very few people on either side of the House have any right to regard themselves as unbiased. I think we are all very biased and partial to our own point of view; and a justice of the peace, who is, generally speaking, a local man, concerned with local affairs and events, is just as biased as the hon. Member for South Kensington, and no more so, because he could not be. Because I believe that these people are biased, because they are Liberal or Labour or Conservative justices of the peace, I think there is something to be said for the proposed new Clause limiting this power to a Judge of the High Court. I am certainly of opinion that a High Court Judge is very much less biased than are the great majority of justices of the peace, and because I believe that they are less biased and less easily obtainable in order to get a search warrant, and because it will be in some measure a safeguard against the misuse of search warrants, I shall support the hon. Member for South Kensington in the Lobby on this Clause.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. West) on the robust and sensible line that he has taken. I should also like, briefly but firmly, to support the proposed new Clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). My hon. Friend the senior Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) must, I think, have amused the House very much by his elaborate attempt to reconcile the attitude of his party on this proposed new Clause and their attitude on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. It was my pleasure, many years ago at Oxford and
in other places, frequently to cross swords with my hon. Friend, and however trivial the measures we debated at Oxford, however far removed from realities, I do not think we have ever taken part together in a discussion so far removed as is this from the mandate which the National Government received or so little concerned with the proper steps that ought to be taken to bring liberty to our peace-loving people. As far as I can make out from the attitude of my hon. Friend, a search warrant is justified if it is to search for something that may offend against the moral sense of the Liberal party, but it is not justified if it is to prevent an attempt to seduce our troops.
I want to make a reference to what my hon. Friend said on the effect which he assumed the new Clause would have. He thinks that, instead of two new judges who are to be appointed, we shall require 12. That seems to demonstrate clearly what many of us have held and what the Liberal Party have frequently denied, that it is improbable that this Bill with all its Clauses will be observed as a whole in the country. If 12 judges are required if this new Clause is instituted, it suggests that there will be a widespread attempt to break the law.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I did not say we should require 12 new judges under this new Clause. I said that if we extended this practice to every search warrant in every statute, we should require 12 new judges.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: My hon. Friend's explanation is very interesting, but I cannot help thinking that the Under-Secretary, if he were a private Member, would not welcome the quality of the recruitment which he has received. I should like to support the new Clause, and I hope the Government will see fit to adopt it.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. CAPORN: The speeches of the hon. Member who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) show how flimsy was the opposition to the powers of search under the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. I do not, however, propose to follow them on that question. My purpose in rising is to ask my hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General, to give us a little information about the
existing powers of search, which I think are under the Betting Act of 1853—not 1802, as the hon. Member for Dundee suggested. If my recollection be correct, there is under Section 12 of the Betting Act, 1853, power for the Commissioner of Police to issue a search warrant in the Metropolitan Police area authorising a superintendent of police to enter and search premises and to arrest and remove any person found in the suspected premises. Will that right of search by the Commissioner of Police remain under the Bill as it stands, and will it apply to the more trivial offences which the Bill now makes penal?

4.33 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I enter this question with an open mind, and, after hearing the arguments on both sides, I am inclined to support the proposed Clause. Only a fortnight ago I was strongly of the opinion that nobody's house ought to be searched on the mere warrant of a magistrate. I fought strongly against that, as most of my friends did, because we claimed that the household of any man or woman was something that ought not to be treated lightly, and that a search warrant signed by a magistrate ought not to be sufficient for a house to be searched. Eventually, we managed to get the Government to see our point of view. Our argument was that there might be among the magistrates certain biased men, by which I mean people who look on the particular activities of another person with disapproval. We were then examining political literature and we had in our mind an old Conservative country squire who might look upon any change in orthodox political views as wrong, and he might sign a warrant without examining the case properly.
There are in this country a number of people bitterly opposed to gambling and lotteries. It is possible that a magistrate with such views might take the same attitude as the other magistrate and authorise a search warrant without going into the matter as fully as he ought to do. If a man's home is a sacred place in the one case, it ought not to be entered lightly in the other case. As I argued under the Incitement to Disaffection Bill that it was not right for magistrates to sign a warrant, I cannot agree with it in this Bill, and on that broad principle I am prepared to support the new Clause.
I like to be consistent in a matter like this, and sufficient time has not elapsed to allow events to cause me to change my view. I do not want it to be argued that I am supporting the Members who are opposing this Measure altogether. I believe a Bill of this kind ought to be passed, but, if there are certain points on which it can be improved on grounds of equity, it is only right that one should help to put it right.

4.37 p.m.

Sir ALFRED BUTT: Like the hon. Member who has just sat down, I am anxious to do all I can to support the Minister in bringing in a Measure to deal with the anomalies of gambling and betting and in giving effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It seems to me, however, that throughout the Debates on this matter the Home Secretary has been entirely inconsistent and illogical. He seeks to get the assistance of the Royal Commission when it suits the purpose of the Government, and, when it does not suit their purpose, he totally disregards the recommendations of the Commission. This Bill will hold the Government up to ridicule and make us a laughing stock. In the Clause dealing with search, the Home Secretary is seeking to use a steam roller to drive in a tin tack. Under the existing law there is adequate machinery for the right of search if the circumstances are sufficiently serious. It is perfectly ridiculous that the House should pass legislation giving a constable a right to search on he mere suspicion that some one or other has a lottery ticket or even several tickets. If the Minister wants to stop lottery tickets being sold in this country, he has, as has already been pointed out, means to do it, namely, by confiscating the prizes. In the circumstances, I propose to support the new Clause.

4.39 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): As I understand this discussion, we are debating a search Clause. The search Clause in the Bill was passed in Committee without discussion, and I do not think that any of the various subsidiary points which are raised by the proposed new Clause were raised in Committee. The only point I want to make at the outset is that we are discussing a search Clause and therefore the question whether it be desirable to
have a search Clause in the Measure seems to be outside the discussion. The only question is whether it will be better to have the search Clause in the Bill or the proposed new Clause. That, as I understand it, is what we are discussing. Reference has been made to the discussions which took place on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. I will briefly summarise those discussions as I understood them. The Government, in the first place, justified the existence of a search warant Clause by pointing to 52 other Statutes in which Parliament had given powers of search, subject to similar conditions. That argument was countered by the argument that that might be possible, but that the Incitement to Disaffection Bill dealt with matters of opinion. Our answer to that was that it did not deal with matters of opinion, and we gave reasons for saying why we thought that argument was unfounded. Then it was argued that, even assuming the Government were right, it raised difficult questions which might be clear to a trained mind, but not clear to an untrained mind.
It was with a view to meeting apprehensions, which we did not think were well founded, but of which we appreciated the existence, that we inserted certain special safeguards, in particular the safeguard that the search warrant could be issued only by a Judge of the High Court. I will come to the other safeguards in a little more detail in a moment. So far as one or two observations have been made in this Debate that the Clause in the Bill is something new in our law, I say that that is not so, for Parliament has in some 50 Statutes given this or similar power of search wherever some document or object is so intimately associated with, or is itself the instrument of, a crime that it has been thought desirable that this power should exist for the suppression of the offence.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Caporn) asked me about the existing law on this matter. I do not want, nor do I think he would want me, to weary the House with any details, but warrants under which houses can be broken into may be issued under the Gaming Act of 1802, the Gaming Act of 1845, the Betting Act of 1853, and, I think, the old Lotteries. Act. Under some of them the only power is to arrest the persons found. Under some there is
also the power to seize documents. I only refer to them to make it clear that we are dealing with an area where Parliament has on successive occasions thought proper—

Sir W. DAVISON: One hundred years ago.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: —thought proper to give this power of search. No evidence has been brought before the House that the powers concerned have been abused or unreasonably used. I now come to the difference between the proposed Clause and the Clause in the Bill, and, if I may, I will refer to later Amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend. The Clause in the Incitement to Disaffection Bill contains the special safeguard that the warrant can only be issued by a judge of the High Court after an application by an officer of the police of the rank not lower than that of an inspector. There is a further safeguard with regard to the duty to given an inventory. The reasons these safeguards were inserted in the Bill, were based on the arguments put forward that, however clear we might be in our minds, or a judge of the High Court would be in his mind, as to the distinction between political opinion and incitement and also the extent of the onus which lies on the prosecution to prove intention these matters would be clear to the trained mind of a judge, but might not be so clear to those justices of the peace who have not had any judicial training. It was to meet the special considerations then put forward that those special safeguards were inserted, but the Government made it quite clear that they did not regard it as desirable to introduce them in every case where power was given to issue a search warrant in the ordinary administration of our criminal law for dealing with ordinary offences on which no question of peace propaganda or political opinions could arise. Therefore, I ask the House to resist the Clause in so far as it would import into this particular branch of the law safeguards which for special reasons were inserted in the Incitement to Disaffection Bill.
My hon. Friend referred to the three months limit in his Clause which is not in our Clause. I ask him to look at the words on the Order Paper which my right
hon. Friend proposes to insert as an Amendment to Clause 27—in page 25, line 40, to leave out from "that," to "may," in page 26, line 1, and to insert:
any premises are being used for the purpose of the commission of an offence under this Part of this Act in connection with a lottery or proposed lottery.
Those words show that we are even more up to date than is my hon. Friend, because it is necessary to satisfy the magistrates that the premises are being used for the commission of an offence.

Sir W. DAVISON: How does that fix the time?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The words are—"premises are being used." It will not be enough to say that they were being used six months ago. I think it will be agreed that those words completely meet that point. I can show, I feel sure, that the Clause in the Bill as it is to be amended will be less oppressive than my hon. Friend's Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) pointed out that under my hon. Friend's Clause there is power to search any persons found on the premises. That is not the case under the Clause in the Bill, where the power is restricted to searching premises, and therefore the question of putting in a special provision to ensure that women shall be searched by a woman does not arise. Further, under my hon. Friend's Clause a search warrant can be granted if evidence of the commission of an offence is to be found on the premises. That is to say, one has merely to indicate any particular premises and say there is evidence of the commission of an offence there, and search warrants can be issued. Under words which have been put down by my right hon. Friend, and which we shall ask the Committee to insert, we make it clear that a search warrant cannot be issued on the mere submission on oath that there was evidence of the commission of some offence under this Measure on the premises, but the justice of the peace has to be satisfied that premises are being used for the purpose of the commission of an offence under this part of this Measure. I think that meets the point which was raised as to the case of a person having a bundle of tickets somewhere in his house. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but the House will judge. Surely it cannot be suggested
that the mere casual presence of a bundle of tickets in a house or room would be sufficient to satisfy a magistrate that that room was being used for the purpose of the commission of an offence.

Sir W. DAVISON: I can explain Why I am not satisfied. This is a Clause authorising premises to be searched. It might very well be that someone had been engaged in this practice six months or a year before and that tickets were on the premises, and it might be that someone who strongly objected to lotteries might know that there were stacks of lottery tickets there. He could go to the magistrate and say, "There are large numbers of tickets there and the fellow does not have those tickets there for nothing," and his house might be searched, and, even though nothing came of the search, what we want to do is to prevent the search. A judge would probably find out the position, but an ordinary magistrate who happened to hold very strong views about lotteries might say, "This is quite enough for me; here is your search warrant."

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Of course. If people were prepared to commit perjury—

Sir W. DAVISON: Not necessarily that.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that false information might be given to the magistrate—[HON. MEMBERS: "He was not suggesting that."] I take it, then, there is no suggestion that any false information is being given to magistrates. All I can say to the House is what I have said just now, that if all the evidence a person has got is as to something that happened six months ago he will not satisfy the magistrate that the premises are being used for the purpose of promoting a lottery, because clearly that cannot be done by pointing to the fact that there were tickets on the premises six months before. The point is that whereas, under my lion. Friend's Clause, it is sufficient to show merely that an offence has been committed, we are asking the House to insert words which will confine the use of this power to the use which my right hon. Friend stated to the Committee that it was his intention to confine it, namely, cases where a magistrate
is satisfied that particular premises are being used for the commission of an offence under this part of this Measure. I would like, also, to say one or two words on a somewhat contemptuous reference that was made to the "common or garden policeman" and as to justices of the peace. Our justices of the peace and, our police are entrusted by this House, under our present constitution and organisation, with the carrying out of very responsible and very difficult duties.

Mr. LEVY: I think I am within the recollection of the hon. and learned Gentleman in saying that I cast no aspersions upon the police at all. I was merely referring to the rank of the police officer, and asking that he should be a senior officer.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am very glad to hear that. Possibly it was my fault that I misunderstood the hon. Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is a common expression."]

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is usually applied to butterflies.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: What I wish to say is that there are a large number of Statutes, and in the vast bulk of them power is exercisable by one justice of the peace authorising a constable, a common or garden constable. Evidence of the abuse of that power by constables carrying out their duties is not in existence, or at any rate it is very negligible, and we see no reason for departing from the procedure which has been laid down by Parliament in other statutes, under which no objection has been raised. For this and other reasons we ask the House to reject this Clause, and, later in our proceedings, to accept the Amendments to which I have referred.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I ask myself with some surprise whether this is really all the Government have to say in answer to the speeches we have heard from every quarter of the House in criticism of their proposals and in advocacy of this alternative. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General made us an agreeable speech, showing a high degree of Ministerial precocity, which I am quite sure was not at all unwelcome to the House, but he in no way attempted to face the broad, main, popular, public
issue which is at stake to-day. I would first address myself to the Labour party, His Majesty's official Opposition. We have heard two voices from those benches to-day. I do not say that in reproach, but am using it to reinforce my appeal. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is now in his place, and I will address my remarks very particularly to him, because I have not the slightest doubt that his authority will produce unity among those whom he leads—not perhaps on every question, but I am sure on this.
A sort of argument has been put forward that the Labour party should vote for the Government on this point of the searching of workmen's and other people's dwellings out of revenge for votes which were given by Conservatives on the Disaffection Bill. I feel sure that any man who is considering his public duty with calmness and composure will see that that argument ought not to weigh with him at all. I shall show later that there is no logic in it, but, apart from that, it is certainly not right that a representative of a working-class constituency should address himself to a topic of this kind in that spirit. We are not here to score off each other—or, rather, we may score off each other, but, ultimately, what happens here affects the lives of the people who send us here and to whom we are answerable and responsible.
There is another misconception into which an hon. Member who spoke from the second bench below the Gangway seems to have drifted. He appeared to proceed under the supposition that the doctrine that an Englishman's home is an Englishman's castle had come into existence with the present democratic constitution of this country. Far from it. It existed long before the vote had been extended even beyond the narrowest class, and is deeply ingrained in all of us. I put it to the Leader of the Opposition, who all his life has fought for liberty, that it is a melancholy fact that during the period when the Socialist forces have gained great recognition there has also been—not by their wish—a concomitant and simultaneous inroad upon the liberty of the subject which is very grievous, and they owe it to themselves and to their movement, in view of what is taking place all over the world, to be particularly careful, on all questions
which arise, to preserve the liberty of the individual. Certainly they ought; and I am sure they could not allow a difference between two parties in the House upon the Disaffection Bill to bias them in giving sincere and frank consideration, and that is all I am asking, to this particular Measure.
This is class legislation of the most objectionable character. Rich people have not the slightest difficulty in gambling to their heart's content. The provisions of the Bill make it perfectly clear that the Carlton Club, and, I dare say, the National Liberal Club—although I do not often go there—will have every facility to conduct their sweeps. Everything is done to make it easy for those who are in a well-to-do position. The old Betting Acts were passed 100 years ago, and in those old days betting was an aristocratic thing and it was thought that the working classes had to be kept in good order. Their betters could do what they pleased, but it was not for the working classes to have such indulgences. I am addressing myself entirely to the Opposition benches, and I suggest that they should think about all these matters before they decide to give a vote against what I may call the fair rights of the ordinary man to have his home respected.
Take the question of the domicile. We are asked to authorise a new intrusion into the domicile. It is very serious to treat that as trivial, and to say that it does not matter and that the people concerned are only poor workpeople. It does matter. I see that the Under-Secretary of State is shaking his head. He will be able to speak presently, and he had better keep that valuable organ in a state of repose. Look at this question of a constable entering a home; never mind whether he is a "common or garden" constable. That was not said in any disrespect about our admirable police force, and I am glad that the Solicitor-General realised that he could not make that quite cheap point with any effect. How would the Home Secretary like to have a constable entering his home? He might be out of office in a year and a-half. How would he like a constable coming to his door and someone coming up to his study and saying: "There is a policeman at the door with a search warrant. We do not know whether he is common or garden or not, but here he is with a search warrant"?
That constable might search for one thing and he might light on another thing. I am not afraid that the Home Secretary has anything more to conceal than any of us, but I put it to him that he would feel insulted. So would any of these hon. Gentlemen here. Is it not a greater injury to the ordinary working man, in his cottage standing in a long row of streets? He lives so close to his neighbours, who see everything and see everybody arrive. When the constable comes to the house, they do not know what it is about. All they know is that the police are after him. The policeman comes in and rummages his house, looking through everything that is there. It is a very serious thing. In these days, people ought not to worry too much about party feelings and that kind of thing, when it comes to firmly holding on to the good old liberties which have been built up in this island and which, thank God, we have been able, to a large extent, to preserve.
The question comes as to how you compare the procedure which is adopted in this Bill with the procedure of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. My hon. Friend has moved that the same procedure shall be applied to this Bill as Parliament insisted upon being applied to the Disaffection Bill. There are great differences between the two. The first Bill affected very few people. Not a great number of people want to throw a seditious leaflet over the wall of a barracks. There is happily very little danger of that, but the offence is grave. it was agreed that a judge of the High Court should deal with the offence of trying to cause disaffection among the troops. But here is an offence which everybody admits is trivial, that of trafficking in lotteries or breaking the law in regard to sweepstakes—being guilty of the crime of sweepstake-mongering. This new offence upon which we are invited to turn the whole battery of British law is regarded by most people as exceedingly trivial. There is not one of us, if he searches his conscience, who will not find that there was some moment in his life when he trespassed over the strict line which divides gambling from earning.
This is a very trivial offence, and, if the Bill be passed, nobody will think any the worse of those who take part in lotteries, although the Bill will affect
enormous numbers of people. That is the point. How many homes are you exposing to these inroads? Under the Disaffection Bill you could count the number in a period of five years on your fingers, but under this Bill there will be thousands, or scores of thousands of search warrants, and magistrates all over the place will be beseiged by enthusiasts—Liberal enthusiasts, who are not only found in this House but have their representatives in the constituencies—who, with all the fanaticism and energy of prohibition fanatics, will be busily trying to stop this terrible evil while a world of misery is surging around them. I daresay that magistrates will be signing thousands of these search warrants in the course of a year. If that be not so, let us take measures to make sure that it is not so. Opening all these cases where the domicile may be violated by the entry of a police officer, and where exposure and injury will be done by such an event occurring, is incomparably more injurious to our society than the successful sale of ten thousand lottery tickets. I put that to the sense of the House, for hon. Members to consider with some attention.
You have lost your sense of proportion. Because you have great power, and by ringing a bell you can bring in an enormous brigade—an army corps—you set yourselves and you say that you will appeal to the sense of the House. You will appeal to the sense of those who were not in the House. You will bring them in, and because you can do that and imagine that all power is at your disposal, you feel inclined to have your will enforced in a manner which goes beyond the spirit of the times in a matter so small. You must keep your search warrants for the safety of the State and for the detection of brutal and villainous crime. You should not extend them, as you are doing in this Bill, to matters which are considered to be petty and venial by the vast mass of your fellow countrymen. I say to hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Government benches—not because they may have been impressed by some of the advocacy which has come from the Liberal benches—that there is nothing that those gentlemen would like better than to see the Conservative party put itself in the position where it is weakened by associating itself with this legislation. Having advocated it for
their special anti-gambling purposes they will not hesitate to go about the country and prate liberty on the largest scale.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I think hon. Gentlemen should welcome the return of the Liberal Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) who has brought back recollections of 25 years ago when he was just as irresponsible as any Member could be. He certainly ought to know all about the Liberal party's acrobatics in regard to liberty and freedom as well as their alphabet from A to Z. The right hon. Gentleman rather issues a challenge to hon. Members on these benches—

Mr. CHURCHILL: An appeal.

Mr. WILLIAMS: —or an appeal, as he says. He urged the Leader of the Opposition to make a statement based upon the Debate up to that moment and in regard to my two hon. Friends who intimated that they were likely to support the Bill. Every Member of the Labour party is entitled to vote as he likes on any part of this Bill, and I hope that my two hon. Friends will act as their conscience dictates in regard to this Clause. I resent the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman when referring to search warrants being employed in workmen's homes. My understanding of the working-class of this country is that they are largely law-abiding citizens. The people who would attempt to get away with an illegal lottery are not the ordinary working-men but sharpers, of whom there are quite a number and who do not belong to the working-class. That does not justify or otherwise the Minister's Clause, or the Clause which is before the House at this moment. After listening to the Solicitor-General, I am not sure that I agree with my two hon. Friends in the point that they made. I have looked at Clause 27 and at the Amendments on the Order Paper, and I am convinced, apart from the High Court judgment which was intended to allow lotteries to take place, that they will be a bigger safeguard than the Clause proposed by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison).
One of my hon. Friends referred to the impartiality of magistrates. I am inclined to agree that if it were a question of determining whether a search
warrant should be issued in a case of alleged sedition I should not care for it to be considered by the hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause. I am convinced that he would not require a lot of information before agreeing to the warrant. I am also convinced that if it were a question of an illegal lottery he would hesitate a long time before he would sign any warrant to allow a search to take place.

Sir W. DAVISON: That is what we suggest, that there are lots of people who are not independent.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I must remind every hon. Member who is supporting this new Clause that they were willing to hand over every bit of liberty of the average Englishman's position on a recent occasion. They did not think then that an Englishman's home was his castle. An English workman's home is not only not a castle but not a home at all, because, in many cases, of the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping and his colleagues when they sat on the Government front bench and refused to give that defence to the average working man to which we think he is entitled. If an agricultural labourer is dismissed for any reason, such as redundancy or what not, he is out of his house in a week. From the working man's point of view there is a good deal of humbug about this idea of an Englishman's house being his castle.
Viewing the position as impartially as I can, and desiring as much as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping to preserve the liberty of the individual, I feel more inclined to agree to the Amendment, which would require that the offence should have been committed at the moment when the warrant is being issued, and not dated back for three months as is suggested in the proposed new Clause. I am not anxious to rob any individual of the freedom and liberty to which he is entitled, and I should lament any vote that I gave which would result in denying any one that liberty. The Solicitor-General has told us that there are numerous Acts of Parliament in which similar points are embodied, and no hon. Member has disproved his statement with regard to the administration of those Acts. Now that the House has declared that huge lotteries shall not take place, I think the
right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is justified in taking steps to see that that part of the Bill is carried out.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. ALBERY: Not being versed in the law, and having had a comparatively virtuous existence up to the present, I have remained, like a good many other people, in blissful ignorance of the fact that, on a statement made on oath, a justice of the peace could send one constable to make a forcible entry into my house. I must admit at the same time that probably one of the reasons why I have remained unaware of that fact is that this power is so seldom exercised, and is only, no doubt, exercised with very proper discretion. After all we are dealing with a Betting Bill, and it is no use passing this Bill—I know that a lot of people do not want is passed, but it is no use even those who think it ought to be passed voting for it unless the Government are allowed to have in the Bill those means which are necessary for enforcing it after it has become law.
I imagine that this right of search is mainly required, not for visiting the cottage of any ordinary man who may have bought his ticket, but for visiting the house of the agent who, contrary to the law, is making a business and a practice of disposing of these tickets, and I cannot think of any other way in which it would be possible adequately to deal with that matter. I should, however, like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to one aspect of this right of search which he may not have considered, and which seems to me to be a very serious one. The Clause provides, among other things, that it is the duty of this constable, who has to go to the house alone, to collect documents, papers and money. This may involve at different times the collection of quite a considerable amount, and I hardly think it is fair to any police officer to send him alone with a search warrant to the house of a private citizen and ask him to take responsibility for collecting what may be quite a large sum of money, and accounting for it afterwards, without any friend or comrade who can support him.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The word "any" in the Act covers more than one; and in such a case as my hon.
Friend suggests certainly one man would not be sent alone.

Mr. ALBERY: With all due respect to my hon. and learned Friend, it seems to me that this Clause with reference to search warrants is being passed for a specific purpose, and in many cases probably the circumstances will not be known beforehand, and, for that among other reasons, surely it would be wiser to specify in the Clause that there shall not be less than two constables when premises are searched in connection with a matter of this kind.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: With regard to the criticism which has been made of the action of our party, I need only repeat what I said on the Third Reading of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, namely, that in my opinion there is all the difference in the world between a search for a specific document and a search for a document that is open to varying political interpretations. There is a difference between going to look for a sweepstake tickets or a chance ticket and going to look for something which would be interpreted in one way by one Member of this House and in another way by another Member.

Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there is no such thing as a chance ticket in this matter? The chance in a lottery may well be contained in a private letter from one individual to another. That is one of our difficulties.

Mr. FOOT: If it is a letter, it is a tangible thing dealing with that specific matter. Everyone agreed, when the Incitement to Disaffection Bill was being discussed, that you might have literature which was open to different interpretations, and it was accepted in the course of those discussions that we were dealing with something that was new. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) was not dealing with facts, but gave us rhetoric from beginning to end. What he said had no relation whatever to the realities that we are discussing in connection with this Bill. At the beginning of his speech he talked about the difference between rich and poor, and tried to appeal to my hon. Friends above the Gangway on the ground that machinery is being estab-
lished here which is going to let the rich man go free while coming with crushing weight on the poor, or something of that kind.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What I said was that, although it would be taken as a great insult by a well-to-do person if a constable were sent to search his house, it would inflict material injury upon the workman.

Mr. FOOT: That was not all that the right hon. Gentleman said. He used as an illustration the Carlton Club, as a club of the well-to-do, and he brought in the National Liberal Club—where we still have his picture in an honoured place. I am of a very generous disposition, and I am not going to recall what the right hon. Gentleman said in the days when, as a Member of His Majesty's Government, he was championing the Licensing Bill of 1908 in this House. He had a great deal to say then about liberty, but not on the same lines as to-day. However, I am too generous to dwell on the unfortunate past of the right hon. Gentleman. His reference to the Carlton Club and the National Liberal Club, if it were not intended to suggest that there is a difference between the rich and the poor, would have no meaning. He ought to know, however, that this Bill makes no difference between the poor man's club and the rich man's club. If the rich man's club decides to have a sweepstake among its members, it can have it under this Bill; and if the members of the poor man's club, in the poorest village or in the East End of London, decide to have a sweepstake with their smaller contributions, they can have it under the same conditions as can obtain in the richest surroundings. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's argument, and his appeal to the Labour benches, had no basis whatever in reality.
He talked about the thousands of search warrants that there would be, and the minions of the law going out North, East, South and West disturbing poor people living in houses in colliery districts, and all the rest of it; but everything that he contemplated can be done at present. He shakes his head, but will he dispute that what he now talks of as likely under this Measure can be done under the existing law, and could be done under the existing law when he was a
Minister of the Crown? There was a search warrant under the Licensing Act, 1910, and it is not proposed in this Measure to give any extended power beyond those that obtained during the years when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister of the Crown. At one time he was Home Secretary, and what was possible under his administration then is possible now, even if this Bill should go no further than the Report stage and should never receive the assent of His Majesty. The right hon. Gentleman was astute enough to evade the main point of the argument, which is that if this proposal be carried there will be a more repressive power of search than if the Bill were allowed to stand with the proposed Amendment. If under the Bill you are being chastised with whips, under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal you are being chastised with scorpions.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not making any proposal.

Mr. FOOT: The proposal which the right hon. Gentleman is supporting. Does he now withdraw his support? Does he deny that under the Bill as it stands, with the proposed Amendment that is on the Order Paper, there is no power of personal search, but that under the proposal which he has supported with such eloquence, to-day there is a power of personal search? A man may very strongly resent the power of personal search and the harrying of poor people by the minions of the police—the harrying of the poor people in thousands; I think the right hon. Gentleman just hesitated before he suggested millions. All that he has suggested has no association with reality. We made our position perfectly clear on the Second Reading. We said that this was not our Bill, that it was not a Bill that we would have introduced; but we promised support for its main principles, and that support we have maintained. All through the discussion we have stood by the main principles of the Bill, although it was not introduced by us and we did not ask for it in these terms. The right hon. Gentleman must accept the responsibility for a statement which I think neither he nor his friends can deny, and that is that, if this proposal be now adopted, it will establish a more repressive power of search than there is under the existing law, and certainly a more repressive power than that
in the Clause for which the Home Secretary himself is responsible. I beg of the right hon. Gentleman in the future Debates on this Bill—and I hope he will join in them all—to help us by directing his consummate gifts to the realities of the case before us, and not to lead us to discuss matters that are really not before the House and are not raised, by the words on the Order Paper.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. FLEMING: I rise to support this proposed new Clause for a reason which I think has not yet been touched upon by any Member who has spoken. I have listened with very great interest to the speeches which have been made, but there is one thing in the Clause that appeals to me very forcibly, because for the last 12 or 13 years I have agitated that in every judicial area there ought to be at least one magistrate who has been, to adopt the phrase of the Solicitor-General, judicially trained.
In my experience up and down the country before courts presided over by lay magistrates I have been very forcibly struck by their tendency to support on every possible occasion what they look upon as their police officer. I am very much afraid that if ever application be made under this Statute, if it ever becomes a Statute, to the ordinary lay magistrate for a search warrant by a local police officer, so long as there is no stipendiary magistrate on the bench to direct his brothers, the police officer's word in such a matter as laying an information will be the first and last word considered. I have never had that fear when I have been before a stipendiary magistrate, and I am certain that the fear would evaporate entirely if such an information had to be laid before a High Court judge.
Under this Bill, which I sincerely hope will not pass in its present form, there is an opportunity of stating that whenever a search warrant is to be issued for what is looked upon by some people as a trivial matter but by others, I suppose, as a serious one, at least the information laid should be seriously and, above all, unbiasedly entertained by the person who is going to grant the warrant. In my experience, in every instance where a matter like this has cropped up—I could give instances under other Statutes—there is the grave danger of the untrained
mind of the man whose own personal views outweigh all the other views that may be put before him. That is what I have always feared, and that is why I have always advocated that in every area, if possible, there should be at least one legally trained magistrate who could advise his fellow magistrates just to prevent that personal bias. It is immaterial to me whether it is an inspector who appears before a High Court judge or a common or garden police constable. What is most material is that the man who has the power of saying Yea or Nay should be unbiased. You will certainly have that if you put the power into the hands of a High Court judge.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: I rise to appeal to the Home Secretary whether it is not possible for him to meet the point die hon. Member has just put forward. Many of us on these benches, while very anxious indeed to support the Bill in its main principles, look with concern upon this Clause and the power that it gives to an ordinary justice of the peace to issue a search warrant. I am speaking with personal knowledge and experience as a justice of the peace myself. On certain points of view it is impossible to keep the ordinary justice of the peace free from bias. In a poaching case he starts with a bias. On this issue a justice of the peace endowed with the right to issue a search warrant will be inclined to look at the matter from the particular point of view that he himself holds as to how far gambling is a serious offence against the community and the State. I believe it is possible for the Home Secretary to agree that a search warrant should only be granted on the application of a stipendiary magistrate. I believe most of us who have some knowledge and experience in our capacity as justices of the peace would be inclined to say that in a matter of this kind a stipendiary magistrate would be equal to a High Court judge. Further, we feel that the House should be very careful indeed how it extends this power of search.
We have looked upon this matter during the last few weeks from a very serious point of view. While the Bill is directed against a social evil, I hope that, in our desire to cure one evil, we shall not inflict a very serious injury upon the liberties of our people. I think practic-
ally everyone is agreed on the principle that there shall be some power of search, but the new Clause sets up a different kind of power of search. If the right hon. Gentleman would see this point of view that I am trying to put and make some attempt to meet the conscientious feelings that some of us have, he would not only satisfy a good many hon. Members opposite but he would go a very long way indeed to satisfy men like myself Who are truly anxious to do the right thing in the right way.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. BAILEY: I am very anxious to be convinced on this question because, as a loyal supporter of the Government, it goes very much against the grain to vote against them, as I shall have to do if no more arguments are forthcoming than we have had at present from the Front Bench. I appeal to the Home Secretary to supply us with some arguments which are at present lacking. I listened with the greatest interest to the intervention of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot). His first argument was that there is a distinction between the right of search in this case and in the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, and he suggested that for that reason the different procedure proposed to be adopted by the Government was justified But there are other differences, and one of them was very well pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). The great difference is that, whereas in the case of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill the right of search will affect very few homes, in the case of this Bill it may conceivably affect many homes. Therefore, we should be all the more careful before we put this power into the hands of those whose use of it we shall not be able completely to control.
I do not care why my home is searched, whether for disaffection literature or because I am supposed to be the holder of a sweepstake ticket. I should resent it in either case unless it were absolutely necessary on grounds of public safety, and I do not think it is necessary on grounds of public safety in connection with this Bill. The hon. Member's second argument was that the Clause goes further in allowing the right of search than the Clause proposed by the
Government, because it allows a personal right of search. I should be very grateful if we could be told whether in fact the Government interpret their Clause as not giving to any officer under them a personal right of search. In any case, I see no reason why the two principles of non-personal right of search and allowing a High Court judge to define the matter could not be embodied in a proper Clause.
May I turn to the arguments of the Solicitor-General? First of all, he deplored very strongly the suggestion that the magistrates were not an honourable body, and he said they were men of the highest reputation. I am getting a little tired of that argument, because I find that whenever the Government want them to do anything they are honourable and whenever we want them to do anything they are liable to corruption. The Solicitor-General cannot have it both ways. It is not a question of regarding the magistracy with contempt. We all have the highest respect for them. It would be good for the Solicitor-General's education to hear what I was going to say. He is not, I imagine, as much in contact with these magistrates whom he compliments as some of us. Surely the first principle should be that we should not put upon the shoulders of the magistrates tasks which are likely to lead them to depart from their duty. We value their impartiality. Why put into their hands, therefore, the decision on questions upon which we know that they must hold very strong personal views? On questions of theft the magistrate is impartial and anxious to do his duty, but I defy even the hon. Member for Bodmin to be impartial if it be an application to grant a right of search of the home of someone whom he thought had a sweepstake ticket.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I do not see under the Bill that anyone could apply for a warrant to search someone's home on the ground that he had a sweepstake ticket, or that anyone could grant it. It has nothing to do with the Bill. I can have a sweepstake ticket, and it is not illegal. Any magistrate who granted a power of search thinking that the householder had a sweepstake ticket would be making himself eligible for the asylum.

Mr. BAILEY: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for keeping me so meticulously to the point of accuracy. I agree that a sweepstake ticket which had been obtained lawfully would not come within the purview of the Bill. I was giving my hon. Friend credit for a higher degree of intelligence than he apparently possesses, in that I did not explain myself fully. I meant a sweepstake ticket connected with a lottery which would be illegal. I would say without disrespect to the hon. Member that it is impossible for anyone who holds strong views on the subject to be impartial, or else why do not we allow magistrates connected with the drink trade to be on the licensing bench? One cannot have it both ways. You realise perfectly well when a thing is going against you that these people are not being impartial, and that it is only when they are in your favour that wou can conceive that they are impartial in character. There is great danger when you give magistrates power to deal with matters which are highly controversial and upon which they hold the strongest personal opinions.
There is another point. It is not a question of whether a magistrate is anxious to do justice or not, but of whether he can do justice. What is the only protection of a member of the public against whom an application for search is being made? It is that the person before whom the application is heard shall have the power to determine whether it is made on good grounds or not. When you see motorists convicted at the rate of 10 a minute you know quite well that that is not impartiality. That happens before local magistrates. I am not condemning them, but they have to carry on their business at such a rate that they cannot possibly give a case like this all the attention it merits. The only safeguard you can have in dealing with this type of application before a tribunal is the safeguard of cross-examination by a person competent and with the experience to cross-examine. That is really the point. That safeguard would not exist before any magistrate. I am not criticising magistrates at all, but the average magistrate is not chosen by virtue of his experience of the law.
A policeman who may not believe in betting may hear that there is something illegal going on in a certain house. He
may therefore make an application before a magistrate who would grant power of search as a matter of course. The magistrate would not know what questions to ask the policeman. The High Court judge, when a policeman came along to make an application because he had reason to suspect, would ask why he had reason to suspect, and would go into greater detail. I am sure that in practice that would be a real safeguard against vexatious search. If the matter were raised before a judge, you would give to the citizen a reasonable safeguard that his home would not be searched and that he would not be subject to very grave personal inconvenience. We get very blase about the things we are passing. We get so much legislation poured down our throats by a Government which never knows when to let well alone, and we are in the position that we pass things as a matter of course. We seem to be too weary and tired to give them the criticism they deserve, but here we are giving a very serious precedent for something which may be used very wrongly in the future. Frankly, I regard the right of search with the utmost suspicion, and instead of trying to extend it, we should do all we could to limit it. I sincerely hope that the Government will, on this occasion, at any rate, feel that it is possible for them to make some concession in this matter.

5.50 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I rise to appeal to the House to come to a decision upon this problem. We have been discussing the matter for very nearly two hours. It is a problem upon which Members are entitled to take different views, but I say with emphasis that the attempt to bring into this discussion, whatever the merits or demerits of either side, the suggestion that it is class legislation is clearly out of court. Those who disagree with the decision of the House that large lotteries should cease are quite justified in arguing against, and in producing criticisms of, the proposals which the Government are adopting in order to carry out the decision of the House. But let us make no mistake about tins problem. It is not a question of an attempt to go in and seize a single ticket or a single individual. The House knows from past experience in these
matters that there are people who make a regular professional business of this matter, and it is essential that some method should be found to deal with this kind of professional people. The question of the search warrant was dealt with in the report of the Royal Commission, and they state that under Section 4 of the Gaming Act, 1802, and Section 59 of the Lotteries Act, 1823, justices can issue to-day a warrant authorising the entry of premises where a lottery is believed to be carried on and arrest those found on the premises. We are asking here that, at any rate, we shall have a practical method of dealing with this problem. We are not, in fact, giving the power of search of the person unless—and this is true apart from any search warrant—a constable acting in this matter has reason to suppose, whether it be by search warrant or otherwise, that a person is doing something illegal and contrary to law. He has powers of arrest, if there be obstruction—

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Under the existing law.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Under the existing law. If this House is to be honest and carry out what it has decided, it is essential that there shall be a right to search. [An HON. MEMBER: "And arrest!"] Yes, and the right of arrest, if it be necessary. Of course it has to be justified. Whether it be a constable or one of higher rank, he would have to justify that arrest before the proper authority. People talk to me as if all the magistrates throughout this country are biased, either one way or the other, upon the question of lotteries. The truth is that it matters not at all whether the view of the individual magisrate is in favour or against lotteries. He has to consider whether the evidence of the police constable or the police officer gives him the power of entry. The constable has to justify that evidence. You say to me that I should not like the police to come to my house because I belong to a different class from the poor people of this country. What utter rubbish! Do the police come to my house to see whether I have proper authority for carrying arms? Of course, they do. What rubbish it is to say that anybody resents a decent and honest
chief constable, or officer, or plain clothes constable coming into his house. Of course, if you are doing something contrary to law, no doubt you would object.

Sir W. DAVISON: What about the Sedition Bill?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am not dealing with that Bill. I think that the Incitement to Disaffection Bill is necessary, and that this Bill is also necessary.

Sir W. DAVISON: Why not have the same procedure?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Would my right hon. Friend like the police to come to his house with a search warrant?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes; if they came to my house with a search warrant, what reason have I to object? If I am acting wrongly and against the law, I have no reason to dissent. The law has to be carried out, and I hope that it will be carried out. Why this nonsense? What is the reason of these arguments? The House can decide for itself. All I say is that these powers in the main exist to-day. They have not been abused, and is it to be assumed that they are to be abused in the future? On the contrary, I do not believe that that will be the case. I think that we have debated this matter long enough, and I hope that the House will now come to a decision.

Sir W. DAVISON: rose—

HON MEMBERS: Divide!

Sir W. DAVISON: This is a very important matter. The Liberals want to divide, but this is the serious question of domiciliary search of the home. The learned Solicitor-General said that my Clause was a much more stringent one. Why do not they accept it if that is so? He has not said a word as to why a judge should not be preferable to a magistrate, and with regard to what was said that there was no right of search under the present Clause, may I point out to the Home Secretary that if a policeman—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I have allowed the hon. Member to ask a question before the Minister sat down, but he has exhausted his right of speech.

Sir W. DAVISON: I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is
aware that my Clause is different, and that if a policeman got into my house and thought that I was concealing tickets he could search and arrest me.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Home Secretary has addressed us with great passion, as is his practice when he has no intelligible defence. I suggest to him that we all like it, but that when he is not in a passion he makes a better speech and one more likely to appeal to our minds. The Home Secretary thinks that this Clause applies only to large lotteries. Does his own Clause in the Bill apply to large lotteries? On this, as on previous occasions, he has not troubled to read his own Bill, which applies equally to private lotteries. The Clause which we are seeking to amend by the new Clause of my hon. Friend is Clause 27 which refers to
an offence under this part of this Act,
and accordingly an offence committed under Clause 24 is "an offence under this part of this Act." Clause 24 relates to private lotteries, but the Home Secretary said "large lotteries." If the Conservative Club at South Croydon, through which, as I mentioned the other day, I won a goose and a bottle of whisky last year, permits a lottery in future arid provides me with some posters of the lottery, and a supply of tickets, and I put one of the posters in my house cc, that when friends come in I may have a better chance of selling tickets in the lottery, I shall have committed an offence under the Act. If any maliciously-minded member of the Liberal party happened to call at my house and saw that poster, he would then be entitled to go to a magistrate and swear an information that in my house there was a poster contravening Section 24 of the Act. The magistrate would be compelled to issue a search warrant, and the police could come to my house at a time when it was empty and locked up and obtain a forcible entry. The Home Secretary denounces us with great vigour, and gets terribly excited instead of applying his mind to the very serious problem we have been trying to study carefully since a quarter to four o'clock. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that a large number of speakers have taken part, as the speeches have been commendably brief, but only two Socialist
Members and two Liberal Members of the section that opposes the Government have shown the slightest sympathy with the proposal of the Government.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: And an hon. Member at the back.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Oh, no; the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) by no means commended this policy. He said that he thought that it was right that the Government should have the right of search. The Clause proposed by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) does not take away the right of search, but safeguards that right. Therefore, it is impossible to quote the hon. Member for Gravesend as supporting the policy of the Government.
We are considering under what conditions the search may be conducted. So far, I have heard no arguments to sustain the point of view put forward from the Government bench. The only serious attempt to defend the Government position was not made by the older generation but by the younger generation, the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot) who gave us a legal lecture which had little or no connection with the subject matter. He indicated that it is quite easy to identify lottery tickets, and different from the position under the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, where you may be looking for a mass of literature. I asked him if he knew what a chance is. I am not clear what a chance is, because it is not defined in the Bill. I can think of many chances which indicate something different from the possession of tickets. There are things known on the Stock Exchange as share certificates, bearer bonds and inscribed stock. Inscribed stock may bear the same relationship to a share certificate as a chance does to a lottery ticket. If I enjoy the confidence of people to a sufficient extent that they will hand me their money in a lottery, without receiving a ticket in exchange, solely because I have inscribed their name in a book, that, clearly, is a chance in a lottery.
If people want to dodge the new Act—I am certain that great masses of people will try to dodge it, and they will not be confined to those who have criticised the Bill, but will include large numbers of people who have voted for the Conservative party—one of the dodges which will be attempted will be that of having a
chance of some sort or another in a ticket. If you are going to use your search Clause to deal with the kind of evasion that will arise, you will have to search for chances. That is not like looking for a nice tidy bundle of tickets in a parcel which clearly indicates that it has come from a printer and you know what you are looking for. You may have to look with not less assiduity than Cromwell exercised when he searched for the Mace.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: He never searched for it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: At any rate, he found it. As a result of that enterprise on his part our door bears evidence of the fact that that kind of search is no longer tolerated. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) had greater respect for constitutional principles than he has shown in the Debate to-day.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I should have a greater chance of voting for the Government if I only knew what the Government want. The Solicitor-General, in a charming speech, assumed that the House was perfectly innocent and without any of the guile which we know is in the mind of every lawyer, however sweetly he may speak to us. He told us that we all assumed that these powers are necessary. We do not assume that. That is the trouble. Practically no one has assumed that these powers are necessary. I have listened to both the speeches from the Government bench, and neither of them laid it down why these powers are necessary. If they would tell us that they are necessary because under certain new Sub-sections they have not the powers they require, I would not mind supporting them. What is the position in regard to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police? Has he not the power to search in various ways and to stop betting if he wants to stop it? If he has not sufficient power, why can we not be told? There are immense powers under the law in regard to search, but they are very rarely used. If there are new offences being set up under this Bill which require that additional powers
should be given to deal with them, let the Government say that that is so and the House will give them the powers without any trouble.
The Government tell us that they want these powers of search to deal with what many of us consider to be a gross gamble, that is, the sale of Irish sweepstake tickets in this country. If that is what they want to deal with, and on a large scale, they could have got the Debate through an hour or two ago without any trouble. They must separate clearly in the minds of hon. Members the question whether they want to deal with a big issue and a real scandal, or whether they want to use these powers merely for the purpose of pin-pricking individuals here and there, which may be done when we have as Home Secretary not one as good and honest as the present Home Secretary but some appalling prig, as we have had within the memory of this Parliament, or very shortly before. That is what we want to avoid. If it is to be laid down that the Government must have the power of search and it is really necessary to have it, let them tell the House quite clearly why they want it and let them narrow down the issue. If they will assure us in that way many of us may feel it more easy to support them.
If the granting of a search warrant is to be left to the magistrate, it means leaving it to the administration of some local person. I say quite frankly that in a matter of this importance it is far better to have big general administration and the right of search granted by a judge, as set out in the proposed new Clause, rather than leave it to the administration of a local magistrate. The Home Secretary does not think that that is possible. He has not said that by going to a magistrate you can get the administration to work more quickly. If we were told that, we might agree with him, hut none of these reasons has been given. All that we have been told is that the Government want these powers, and we must leave it at that. I have not yet voted against the Government on this Bill. Although I thoroughly dislike much that is in it, I believe that some parts are good. I would like the Government to go a little more out of their way to meet those of us who give them full and
loyal support rather than meet those people who kick them on every occasion outside the House. It seems to me that those who are being pampered are the people who are always kicking the Government outside the House.

Sir J. GILMOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 56.

Division No. 395.]
AYES.
[6.9 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Petherick, M.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Albery, Irving James
Grigg, Sir Edward
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Grimston, R. V.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Apsley, Lord
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pybus, Sir John


Assheton, Ralph
Hales, Harold K.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rea, Walter Russell


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portam'th, C.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Been, Sir Arthur Shirley
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Bernays, Robert
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Rickards, George William


Blindell, James
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Robinson, John Roland


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Horobin, Ian M.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Boulton, W. W.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney. N.)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Btraithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hurd, Sir Party
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Burnett, John George
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Jamieson, Douglas
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Ker, J. Campbell
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Lees-Jones, John.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Lewis, Oswald
Smith, Sir R. W. (Ab'd'n. & K'dine, C.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Soper, Richard


Cook, Thomas A.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cooke, Douglas
Loder, Captain J. de Vero
Spens, William Patrick


Copeland, Ida
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Stones, James


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Storey, Samuel


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, Edward A.


Cross, R. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hen. J. R. (Seaham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Crossley, A. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
McKie, John Hamilton
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Drewe, Cedric
Magnay, Thomas
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Train, John


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tree, Ronald


Dunglass, Lord.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh. E.)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Eales, John Frederick
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Turton, Robert Hugh


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Meller, Sir Richard James
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Elmley, Viscount
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Milne, Charles
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morgan, Robert H.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Morrison, William Shephard
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Fox, Sir Gifford
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Munro, Patrick
Withers, Sir John James


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Ganzoni, Sir John
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Patrick, Colin M.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Peake, Osbert



Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Pearson, William G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Penny, Sir George
Major George Davies and




Commander Southby.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Attlee, Clement Richard
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Tate, Mavis Constance


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
John, William
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Banfield, John William
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Templeton, William P.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thorne, William James


Broadbent, Colonel John
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Buchanan, George
Leonard, William
Wayland, Sir William A.


Cape, Thomas
Levy, Thomas
West, F. R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Daggar, George
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Edwards, Charles
McGovern, John
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Maxton, James
Wilmot, John


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Parkinson, John Allen



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Pike, Cecil F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Sir W. Davison and Mr. Wise.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Remer, John R.

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 201.

Division No. 396.]
AYES.
[6.18 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Remer, John R.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Groves, Thomas E.
Robinson, John Roland


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Hales, Harold K.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Selley, Harry R.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Bring)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Banfield, John William
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Tate, Mavis Constance


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
John, William
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, William James


Broadbent, Colonel John
Knox, Sir Alfred
Tinker, John Joseph


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Todd, Lt.-Col, A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Buchanan, George
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Leonard, William
Wayland, Sir William A.


Cape, Thomas
Logan, David Gilbert
West, F. R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lunn, William
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Dagger, George
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
McGovern, John
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon S.)


Drewe, Cedric
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James
Wilmot, John


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Parkinson, John Allen



Everard, W. Lindsay
Pike, Cecil F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Sir W. Davison and Mr. Wise.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Albery, Irving James
Clarke, Frank
Fox, Sir Gifford


Allen, Lt Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Apsley, Lord
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Asks, Sir Robert William
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Gardner, Benjamin Walter


Assheton, Ralph
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cook, Thomas A.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooke, Douglas
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Copeland, Ida
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Bernays, Robert
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Grimston, R. V.


Blindell, James
Cross, R. H.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Crossley, A. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Boulton, W. W.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Denman, Hon. R D.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Doran, Edward
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Dunglass, Lord
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Eales, John Frederick
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Burghley, Lord
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Elmley, Viscount
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Barnett, John George
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Hurd, Sir Percy


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Morrison. William Shepherd
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Jamieson, Douglas
Munro, Patrick
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Ker, J. Campbell
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Soper, Richard


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Patrick, Colin M.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Peake, Osbert
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Penny, Sir George
Spent, William Patrick


Lees-Jones, John
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Lewis, Oswald
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Stewart, J. H. (File, E.)


Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Stones, James


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Storey, Samuel


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Power, Sir John Cecil
Strauss, Edward A.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd.Gr'n)
Pybus, Sir John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Templeton, William P.


Loftus, Pierce C.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Train, John


Mabane, William
Rea, Walter Russell
Tree, Ronald


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Turton, Robert Hugh


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


McKie, John Hamilton
Rickards, George William
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Magnay, Thomas
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D, R.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Meller, Sir Richard James
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Withers, Sir John James


Milne, Charles
Savery, Samuel Servington
Womersley, Sir Walter


Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark. Bothwell)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Molten, A. Hugh Elsdale
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)



Morgan, Robert H.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward




and Major George Davies.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Pari mutuel or pool betting football.)

No pari mutuel or pool betting business concerned with football/shall be carried on except under the following conditions:—

(a) The promoters shall obtain a permit from the Secretary of State for Home Affairs;
(b) The permit shall be granted only if the promoters agree to deduct not more than 20 per cent. of the total receipts of the pool each week, out of which all expenses of the business shall be defrayed, and which shall also include the profits of the promoters;
(c) The promoters shall furnish each month a statement certified by a qualified accountant, showing—

(i) The gross sums received or receivable in respect of the business for each week during the previous month;
(ii) The amount returned to customers;
(iii) The amount retained by the promoters to include expenses and profit as aforesaid;

(d) The Secretary of State shall have power to revoke the grant of any permit if any of the foregoing conditions are at any time not complied with.—[Mr. Isaac Foot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The names of hon. Members who are supporting this Clause will prove that it has the support of Members representing every section in the House and, indeed, since it was put on the Order Paper I have been approached by many hon. Members who have expressed their support of the principle contained in the proposal. I do not intend to cover the ground already discussed when the question was raised in Committee upstairs, but I think the proposal I have put forward will, if it is adopted, go far to meet the criticisms which were then put forward. May I remind hon. Members of the history of this question? In 1920 Parliament was concerned about the growth of pool betting, particularly in relation to football, and an Act was passed to suppress it altogether. The Act met with the approval of the great football associations of England and Scotland. It was felt that unless steps were taken, a new form of gambling activity would grow up which might soon develop into a gambling evil holding out special temptations to the young people of the country. Whatever may be said about gambling generally, this House will recognise that it has a responsibility for the protection of the youth from the
evil. A grown man can bet, and he is none the worse for it, he can determine his own life, but it is wrong that the youth of the country should be exposed particularly to those temptations which are organised by people who have financial aims at the back of their activities.
Unfortunately, the Act passed in 1920 was stultified. It was intended to deal only with cash betting, but it was found possible to evade that Act by allowing the payment of the premium, whether 2d. or 6d., or more, to be paid the following week, and as a result of finding a way around the purpose of that Act, there has grown up a system of betting which would have startled those who considered the Act of 1020. The extent to which that betting is carried on I do not know. I doubt whether anyone can speak with authority on the subject. The body that stands for the interests of the Pool-Makers' Association—I think that is its title—alleged some time ago that as much as £8,000,000 was invested in the course of the year. "Invested" is their word. During the Committee stage we discussed some of the Post Office figures. Even if those figures are disputed to the extent of £100,000 or £1,000,000, it still means that a very wide area is concerned. But if £8,000,000 of money is being spent in this new form of gambling, whether it is right or wrong, it is of sufficient importance to concern this House.
The matter was discussed by the Royal Commission, and the commission's recommendations are stated in paragraph 318 and later paragraphs. They considered the subject so important that some pages of their report are devoted to the question. What was pointed out was that we had here all the evil of the tote club. The only difference between this form of activity and the tote club, which was denounced by public opinion everywhere, was that there is no actual resorting to the place where the betting is carried on. If in the case of the football pool there was the actual resorting of the man who puts his money upon the coming Saturday's events and the results, if he resorted to the offices of the bookmaker, that at once brought the place within the definition of a tote club, which is condemned as a mushroom growth and an evil.
It would not be fair to the House for me to dwell longer upon the clauses in
the report of the Royal Commission. But they attach so much importance to the matter that they made strong recommendations. Upon this subject the commissioners were not unanimous. Upon most of their recommendations the commissioners were unanimous, but there was a division among them as to how this evil should be dealt with. That it was a social evil they had no doubt, hut there were three members of the commission who thought there should be total suppression and there were others who thought that it should be dealt with by some restriction upon the odds, and so forth. The details of that I need not dwell upon now. Then there came the introduction of the Bill. When the Bill was introduced quite clearly it was intended to suppress this thing altogether. There was a good deal of discussion throughout the country, and many Members of this House found their postbags swollen by the appeals that were then beginning to come in from those who were undoubtedly in most cases provoked to make their opposition by men whose financial interests were threatened.
When the Bill came before the other House, the Noble Lord who was in charge of it withdrew this part of the Bill before any discussion arose. I shall not weary the House with the words that he used, but he made it clear that although the Government were withdrawing this part of the Bill, they still reserved their right to deal with it. Those who were concerned in the matter financially must not think that they have escaped altogether. The Noble Lord gave a clear hint that if the evil grew and if public opinion became more developed upon this matter, action might he taken later. He went no further than that. This part of the Bill was not withdrawn as a result of discussion, nor as a result of the Second Reading Debate, but as a result of some action of which this House has not been informed. Whether the pressure was strong or in what direction it was exercised we do not know now, and it is likely that we shall never know, but it was something for which an explanation should be given—that a Bill not wantonly brought in but after careful consultation should contain a very important Clause of this kind dealing with a very wide area of gambling
activity, and that then the House should not have even an opportunity of voting upon it.
Last week, when the matter was under discussion, the Government secured a majority which meant that we could not carry out the wishes of the Commission, and could not suppress this thing that has been condemned, and still is being condemned by those responsible for the sport of the country. Let us remember that those who gave the most insistent evidence before the Commission were those who were at the head of the great football Leagues of England and Scotland and who were naturally intensely concerned that that great sport should not be poisoned by these activities. They alleged, as they have done all along, that there should be a total suppression of this thing, and suggested that the football matches as arranged by the great Leagues would be glad to be free from this menace. I think the House should have regard to those who have interested themselves so much in providing for hundreds of thousands of our people every week a form of wholesome and healthy sport.
We have got, therefore, against this proposal the recommendation of the Commissioners, the very urgent plea of those who are immediately concerned with the maintenance of sport, and we have the facts themselves. The facts are that here is something which Parliament intended to stop, that the work of Parliament as expressed in the Act of 1920 has been stultified by recent events, and we have a system now which, if it is to continue, should be brought under some measure of control. I am not going to make any railing accusations against those who run these concerns. Some of the concerns may be quite honestly conducted. Some of them claim that they submit their figures from time to time, I think every week, to chartered accountants or qualified accountants, and that the thing is carried on under proper conditions. That I am not going to dispute. All I know is that the Commissioners realise that there was a great danger of fraud. You have a condition under which there is no security that the contributions subscribed in such vast numbers and representing a great sum of money will be dispersed with any sense of fairness to the people, mainly from working class and poor homes. We have
established some form of control over dog tracks and over horse racing. How long are we to go on without any form of control where the opportunities for fraud are as extensive as they are here?
I understand that it is possible for anyone to set up a concern of this kind, to send touts throughout the country with very alluring appeals to those who are least able to judge, to get their money, and at the end of the week or month to put whatever proportion they like into their own pockets and let the unfortunate people share the remainder. That that is possible is a public scandal which ought to cease. We had some very effective comment upon the matter made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who has gone into this question very closely. He spoke of those who had gone into this business and in a short time had been lifted from indigence to affluence. I have no objection to that if the person has made an ordinary and fair contribution to the society of which he is a member, but I do object to people being turned into men of wealth when they are simply exploiting the weakness of others, and particularly the youth of this country. I am not objecting to the youth investing into these funds, if "investing" is the word. I am not objecting to the betting as between one person and another, and I have not done so since the beginning of this Bill. My whole concern is to try to limit the activities of those who are out to exploit the weaknesses of our human nature, to get financial advantage from the frailties of our people, and who are organising these gambling resources and in that way contributing a great deal to the trouble with which Parliament has to deal.
No one can leave the position as it is. If we had an assurance from the Home Secretary that during the lifetime of this Parliament this acknowledged evil would be dealt with, I would not press my new Clause. I do not think the House ought to leave it as it was left by the Noble Lord in the other House, who gave simply a hint that something might be done upon some distant date. I do not think we can leave it as it was left in Committee by the Home Secretary, who did not purport to make a speech upon it, but in just a word or two said that it was impossible either for the Government to adopt our Amendment or to ex-
plain why the Bill was in its present form instead of as it was when introduced. One advantage of carrying this Clause will be, at any rate, that we shall be able to ascertain the extent of the evil. Under the proposals of the Clause returns will have to be made. No one knows the extent of the business at present. If we can get the facts so as to see what the area of this mischief is, that in itself will be a considerable advance. Is it not fair that this House, being an inquisitive and discerning Parliament, should have that information at its disposal? If the business is as large as many people have suggested, that is the more reason why some reform should be carried out and carried out as soon as possible.
I move this Clause very reluctantly, because I do not want to acknowledge this form of evil. I do not want to give these people the prestige that would come from the granting of a permit by the Home Secretary. But I think it is the lesser of two evils. We must know what is the area of the evil. The Clause forbids people to operate without a permit. Having obtained a permit their receipts must be limited. At present it is possible for these people to use the money of the poorer classes and all subscribing for the purpose of advertising so as to extend the evil. That is the mischief; some part of the money that is being contributed from tens of thousands of homes is being used to widen an evil which Parliament rightly condemned in 1920. I have suggested that the pool should be allowed 20 per cent. for all profits and expenses. There is some difficulty in deciding what the percentage should be, but I regard this proposal as an experiment—

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: It is a very generous percentage.

Mr. FOOT: It may be, and I should certainly be prepared to consider an Amendment in that respect from those who, knowing something of the conditions, may be able to show that that figure is too large. I do not know how it compares with the allowances made in the case of the greyhound tracks and the ordinary racecourses, but I certainly do not want to make the percentage too high. My suggestion is that if we get the facts as the result of the operation of this Clause, and if it is shown that the per-
centage is too high, it should be within the power of the House to make whatever reduction is found necessary after the experiment has been tried over a reasonable period. It is because I think that it would be a grave dereliction of public duty for this House to allow this Bill to pass with that evil left unremedied, without even an attempt to remedy it, that I submit the proposal which stands in my name.

6.47 p.m.

Sir A. BUTT: I beg to second the Motion.
The Home Secretary, in the Second Reading Debate, and subsequently in Committee, pointed out that this Bill cannot properly be looked upon as a party Measure. That is one of the many reasons why I have gladly associated myself with the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) in this new Clause. Perhaps the hon. Member and I do not look at gambling and gambling propensities in exactly the same way, but having read the Royal Commission's Report carefully I came to the conclusion that there were at least two things which, if allowed to continue unlimited and uncontrolled, would be great social evils in this country. One was the totalisator on greyhound tracks and the other football pool betting. In each instance it was proposed, I believe for the first time, to legalise gambling in this country without any control. The Bill deals with the totalisator but not with football pools, and I think the Home Secretary stated that one of the reasons why the legislation originally proposed in regard to football pools had been taken out in another place was that the Government at the moment could not legislate to deal with off-the-course betting. I do not think that that is a sufficient answer. In Clause 18 of the Bill the Home Secretary is legislating to increase betting off the course. My great objection to football pools is that they appeal to the people who can least afford to lose their money. It may be said that people are entitled, if they so wish, to go in for football pools, and if they lose to suffer the consequences, but what I strongly object to is the fact that they do not at the present moment get a fair run for their money. Representations are made to them about the very large prizes which they will receive if successful, and they
are led to believe that they are getting a proper and adequate proportion of the receipts. But it rests entirely with the promoters of the pools what proportion of the receipts is distributed by way of prize money.
I am aware that there are a few promoters who carry on the business in an honest way and give a reasonable and fair proportion of the receipts as prizes, but when there is no control by the State of any kind, it is only human nature that a promoter who finds his receipts decreasing should use an undue proportion of those receipts in order to stimulate business. In consequence, the person who is lucky enough to win, instead of receiving 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the pool, often gets only 15 per cent. or less. I do not think there can be any excuse for the House professing to legislate to regularise gambling and protect those who are unable to protectthemselves, if we ignore this great social evil. I hope that if the Home Secretary cannot see his way to Accept the new Clause in the form in which it appears on the. Paper, he will At least assure the House that he will deal with this matter in the lifetime of this Parliament.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I support the proposed new Clause, although I do not regard it as a very strong one or one which meets the case. In the first place, I agree with the interjection which was made a few minutes ago to the effect that the proposed 20 per cent. allowance for expenses and profits is too high to be given to those who are simply organising gambling facilities for private gain. Another weakness of the Clause is that the qualified accountant may be appointed by the company who are running the pool. They would be his employers, and he might give the figures which were given to him by the company. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] In any case, I would point out that in Schedule 1 of the Bill the qualified accountant in the case of the operation of the totalisator on dog race courses is to be appointed by the licensing authority. If the new Clause proposed that the licensing authority should select the accountant in regard to this matter also, I would be more satisfied. Then there are no penalties in the Clause. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) said that he moved the
Clause so that the House might be put in possession of the facts. I would have preferred an Amendment which comes later on the Paper but which may not be called, proposing the total abolition of this kind of pool betting.
Since speaking during the Committee stage, I have received more scurrilous letters as a result of my observations on that occasion than I have received in regard to any other dozen speeches which I have made in this House in the last 12 years. It is clear, therefore, that the innocent dupes of these pool swindlers still feel that those of us who are opposed to football pools are attempting to rob them of something which they conceive to be legitimate sport. That is not the case. I believe that the Royal Commission were quite right when they said:
We do not regard it as a duty of the State to take steps to ensure that the backer is afforded a safe and trustworthy betting facility but it appears to us to be undesirable and contrary to public policy to allow bookmakers to employ a facility which admits of fraud on a large scale, especially where this fraud may easily go undetected, no matter how long it is practised.
I think the Royal Commission were on safe ground there. They recognised that gambling is a habit, and they went on to say that society would not stand for the total abolition of all forms of gambling and also that in any legislation dealing with gambling there must be a large element of compromise. Football pools are of recent origin. I think they had their origin in newspapers. Now that newspaper competitions have been declared illegal we are in this curious position, that we forbid newspapers to run football competitions but we allow newspapers to advertise the pools of all the pool merchants in Great Britain. There is the elementary explanation that football pool betting is credit betting and, as the Bill does not set out to deal with credit betting, football pools are beyond the scope of the Measure.
There have been prosecutions of football pool promoters. There was one in January of this year. When the premises were raided 135 persons were found there employed in going through the coupons and presumably checking those that had arrived that day. In that case the promoter of the pool was fined £75, but that was simply because the money arrived with the coupons. The kind of pool which the new Clause seeks to deal with
is not very far removed from the ready money pool. All one requires to do is to send in one's forecasts on the Thursday of the forthcoming Saturday's games, and on Monday morning remit one's 6d. or 1s. or whatever it may be. That is perfectly legal and can be advertised in newspapers all over the country.

Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: And would the person send in the 6d. or 1s. on the Monday if he found that he had lost on the Saturday?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Perhaps 10 per cent. of them would not. The wise people would not.

Mr. BOYCE: Does the pool promoter run his business on bad debts?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not think the hon. Member knows a great deal about these football pools. It is obvious that these pools are run not on bad debts but on the willingness of the great majority of those who participate to pay what they regard as their honest debts. Perhaps 5 per cent, or 10 per cent, of those who send in and lose may withhold the money and then transfer their affections to some other pool promoter, but sooner or later those persons will be "caught out" and their coupons will no longer be accepted. The great bulk of the money is regularly paid, and the promoters of the pool can take anywhere from 10 per cent, to 90 per cent, of the whole. They are subject to no inquiry and no control. They give the bettor what they like.
Extraordinary things happen in connection with these pools. A very respected person in Doncaster told me this week that he saw in the paper one of those advertisements which attract the imagination not only of juveniles but of the mature. It offered 100 to 1 against finding 12 winning teams. My informant sent along his Is. week after week in the hope of securing the 100 to 1. But ultimately he did actually find 12 football teams that won. He was successful in getting what he called a "line up," all winners. He expected to receive his 100 to 1, and when no winnings came to him he made an inquiry. This company, with an office in London, informed him that it was quite clear that he had not observed some rule which, in fact, he had never seen. This rule said that he
had not only to find 12 winners, but that he had to find 12 teams that won by an odd goal. As one of the teams in his list won by two to nothing, obviously he had not complied with the rule. I am sure Members will agree that there are thousands of persons searching for that 100 to 1 chance while never knowing of the existence of that rule. They will go on for years perhaps, investing their shillings or five shillings until they may be fortunate enough to get a "line up," when they will discover that they have been paying money to a swindle.
This sort of thing ought not to be tolerated by this or any other Government. If the Government want to exercise control over gambling in any form, and particularly in view of what the Royal Commission said as to the grave danger to juveniles as well as to our sports, it is the bounden duty of the Government to pay attention to this particular form of gambling. The Government have restricted greyhound racing to a certain number of days, and T agree with them in that. They have also restricted the amount of money which may be deducted from investments with the Tote on greyhound tracks, and there, again, I agree with what the Government have done. I only hope that they have not allowed too big a deduction. But in this worst of all forms of swindling it seems to me that the promoters are getting away with it. After the Act referred to by the hon. Member for Bodmin had been passed and following the statement of the noble Lord in another place withdrawing the provision prohibiting football pools, the "Leader," a weekly newspaper largely advertising pools and competitions of all kinds, said in a special article on 4th May, 1934:—
Since the close of the football season and the football pools attractive and popular racing pools have been devised by a leading firm. We are also informed that cricket pools are on the way.
If these pari-mutuel pools, where the promoters need only wangle the figures as they like, are to be permitted by law on the specious argument that this is credit betting which does not come within the terms of this Bill, or that it is a phase of betting which the Government do not wish to deal with at the moment, the Home Secretary might very well tell us this: If the Government do not intend in this Measure to deal with this form of
gambling, will he undertake to do something about football, cricket, racing and other pari-mutuel betting in the next Session? If he would do that I am convinced that he would satisfy a large number of his own friends. He would also fulfil what the Royal Commission themselves said ought to be fulfilled. It is not that I want to limit people's opportunities for pleasant pastimes, but I do wish to limit the opportunities for people organising for their own gain schemes to exploit the uninitiated—preying, as the hon. Member for Bodmin said, on the weaknesses and frailties of human nature. It is the duty of this House at least to see to it that this exploitation is minimised to its lowest possible denominator. Because of that, though I regard this as a weak and tubercular Clause, I would support this in preference to allowing these things to continue as they are.

7.5 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: This is not the first occasion on which this problem has been discussed since this Bill was introduced. It is, of course, true that the Government came to a decision and withdrew from the original Bill the part which set out to deal in some measure with this problem. One thing, I think, stands out very clearly, and that is that there is a feeling of anxiety—to employ a modest term—as to the effect which these pools may have upon the well-being of our people and particularly upon those who are youthful. But, one has only had to listen to this discussion to realise very fully that in fact this new Clause will not, of itself, really deal with this problem. The history of this matter, about which there has been some question, is that when the proposal was originally put in the Bill immediately from all over the country and from all kinds of quarters the kind of letters to which the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has referred, were showered upon Members of every point of view in this House, and also on people outside.
It was clear that there was great feeling about the matter. It became clear to those of us who had the responsibility for dealing with this problem that we were attempting to deal with a section of off-the-course betting which was in a different situation from the great mass of material with which the Government
had originally set out to deal. It is, I think, quite certain that the Government had taken into consideration whether they could carry that which the original Bill set out to carry. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I am a little interested and amused to hear that question being put to me in view of the severe criticisms of the Government that they should have touched a great many of these problems at all. And after all, it is for the House to make up its mind whether in fact this method of dealing with the subject is going to be the most efficacious.
It is evident, I think, from what the hon. Member has just told the House that if this system of pools is to be extended to deal with the football side of it alone that will not be sufficient. It may be, and it probably would be, adapted to other aspects of sport. The Government felt at the time, and I feel with rather added force at the present time, that what we had originally set out to do was not going to be fully effective. In view of the representations which came to us from many quarters, the Government had to make up their mind, and a, statement was made on behalf of the Government in another place. But the Government fully recognised that the course they then adopted might indeed leave an opening for very undesirable practices being continued, and perhaps even made worse than they are at the present time. It was, therefore, stated on behalf of the Government that this kind of thing would not be lightly entertained and that the Government must reserve the right, if they thought fit, to propose legislation to deal with the problem.
The truth is that this Bill for the most part deals with on-the-course betting. If this problem is to be dealt with you are dealing with off-the-course betting and with all the problems which are so interlocked with off-the-course betting—and we came to th6 conclusion that we ought not to deal with it now. I do not in the least doubt that the hon. Members who pu down this new Clause have done their best to try to deal with this problem but I myself do not think that what they—and, as I believe, a large number of Members of this House—would desire to do would in fact be achieved. In the first place, the permit would have to be got from the Home Secretary, and I con-
fess that I should have some hesitation in accepting a responsibility on behalf of the Home Office for anything of this kind. Nor do I think that this new Clause would achieve its object when you come to the question of getting access to these accounts, which are really essential if there is to be adequate and proper control.
The Royal Commission were not of one mind upon this problem. I do not mention that with the view of deterring the House from dealing with this matter as and when it thinks right, but I do suggest that this new Clause, however earnest those responsible for it may be, would not in itself be effective to carry out their intentions. This is a wider question, and, in my judgment, proposals for dealing with it must cover a wider area. I regret, therefore, that I cannot, in the present circumstances, accept the Clause. If I am asked by hon. Members whether I can give a definite assurance that the Government will introduce a Bill to deal with this problem in the next Session, I can only reply that I am not in a position to give an undertaking of that kind. All I can say is that the Government have quite definitely reserved to themselves the full right to deal with this problem as and when they find it possible to do so if circumstances demand it. Beyond that I am afraid I cannot go.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: If this proposal were brought in as a private Bill, does the right hon. Gentleman think that there would be any chance that the Government would do what it could to give facilities for the Bill's passage into law?

Sir A. BUTT: If the Government are unable to deal with this matter now, could not we take the opportunity of warning all these people who are running pools that they must not consider that they have a vested interest—so that they will not subsequently come to this House and say that we must legalise pools because they have put a lot of capital into them?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope the tone and temper of this Debate will be a warning to everyone in the country that this is a pursuit which is looked upon by this House, by all parties, on both sides, with feelings of great disturbance, to say the
very least of it. All that I can say, in answer to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) about a private Bill, is that if and when that private Bill is produced, then I shall be prepared to consider it and consult with my colleagues upon this matte. Beyond that I do not think I can go. I hope that in the circumstances this Clause will not be pressed.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I was much perplexed and even intrigued to know what was the real explanation of this football pool story. When we were discussing this matter in Committee it seemed to be wrapped in clouds of mist, and nothing was forthcoming from the Treasury Bench in any way to throw a light upon it, but now we are indebted to the Home Secretary for a very frank and, if I may say so, a very naive explanation of the principles and reasons which have guided His Majesty's Government in taking the decision which they have to ignore football pools on this occasion. What is the explanation of my right hon. Friend? It is that it would have been unpopular. Here is an admission with regard to what is on the whole perhaps the worst form of gambling which is now current in the country, which is not only confined to football pools, but apparently, as the Home Secretary indicates, is shortly going to spread to racing, cricket, and other spheres. From the revelations which have been made by hon. Members, and by the hon. Gentleman opposite, undeterred apparently by the scurrilous letters that he has received—and I do not think a Member of Parliament ought to be disturbed by scurrilous letters; we should have stopped long ago if we had been disturbed by that sort of thing—the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, with very considerable knowledge of this matter, the kind of way in which the ordinary unsuspecting man in the street is fleeced, is swindled, in many cases—I do not say by any means in all cases—and how, even when he wins a prize, there is some catch in it.
I do not attempt to sit in judgment upon this particular form of gambling, but it seems to be admitted in all parts of the House—the Home Secretary drew the attention of those concerned in the Press to the fact—that this is an extremely unsatisfactory and deleterious
form of gambling. Unfortunately for us, the public, but fortunately for the people engaged in this, they have already got a sufficient amount of backing and bristles for it not to be the kind of topic that the Home Secretary, acting on behalf of His Majesty's Government, cares to touch. This is a hedgehog, a porcupine, prickly, and so the right hon. Gentleman recoils. He has indeed unwittingly been drawn very near to this dangerous animal. The unsuspecting Marquess of Londonderry, in another place, had actually put out his hand to touch or even to strike the creature, but he very soon, warned by the Administration, drew it back. "No, we are reformers, we are going to deal with the evils of betting, we are not going to allow the demoralisation which follows on a Derby sweep. No, in order to stop that, we will not hesitate to enter dwellings, to black out the newspapers, to issue every kind of warrant, o enforce the most severe penalties." All that can be done, but this is another matter. "There is something in this which really would make it inadvisable to go any further. We should have to be very careful in a matter of this kind. We thought it all over very carefully, and we decided that this was an ugly customer that we did not want to tackle."
Where is your principle? Where is your policy? What right have you, when you run away like this, to come up and play the heavy father to this country and tell us what a shameful thing it is to ask that a Derby sweep should be legalised? Rather than do that, you are prepared to set up a vast gimcrack apparatus of oppression and restriction. I am amazed at the mess the Government have got into over this matter, and all their majority will not wipe this out. The people of this country are very much interested in this matter. If there were a, principle in the matter, I think the Government would have some chance, but obviously there is no principle. It is simply a case of push as far as you can and as far as you dare. Where the thing can be kicked, it is kicked, but where it cannot be kicked, the Government bolt. They have bolted away from the football pool, and they imagine they can win back a reputation for consistency by enacting all kinds of severe restrictions and penalties upon a far less injurious form of a national practice which they will never be able to stop. I think it is a
most lamentable matter, and I am very, very sorry for the right hon. Gentleman, whose personal character is so high and whose good nature, courage, and good will have been shown in many fields and in many ways for many years. I am very sorry for him, that he has so shortsightedly and unwittingly allowed himself to be let into a position where, neither from the point of view of popularity nor from the point of view of principle, has he a leg to stand upon.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: I desire to approach this proposed new Clause from an entirely different angle. I was amazed at the speech of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), not because of what is contained in the Clause, but because of his known attitude towards the evils arising from this form of gambling. It was only on the 27th June last that the hon. Member for Bodmin referred to football pool betting in this language:
This evil is ruinous to home life, and the worst part of its effects is the deterioration of character. I have read all I can of what has been said by those who have spoken of the effect of the gambling evil, and they all agree that this thing more than any other effects a deterioration of character by a sort of atrophy of mind."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1934; col. 1168, Vol. 291.]

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I said that in relation to the whole gambling evil. In my Second Reading speech I certainly was speaking about the whole gambling evil, and relying upon the general evidence that had been given.

Mr. PIKE: If the hon. Member will look at column 1168 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 27th June last, he will find that this reference is definitely associated with the reference which he was making in the course of that speech to football pool betting, and so I am entitled to assume that that was, and is even to-day, the hon. Member's attitude towards this specific form of gambling. I am therefore entitled to ask, if that be the hon. Gentleman's attitude and the attitude of all those in this House who are associated with him in this Clause, why it is that they have moved the Clause at all. If it were accepted—and I am delighted to hear that the Government do not propose to accept it—it would mean State recognition and legalisation of this terrible vice, neither more nor less. It
may be suggested that it would be under conditions of limitation, that those responsible for its conduct would only be allowed to reap this, that, or the other given measure of profit from their industry or enterprise, but is it right, is it fair, on a subject of this description, to ask any Government to be responsible for the legalisation of a vice which definitely, even if this Clause were accepted, would place into the hands of a large number of people the power to receive a guaranteed income out of all proportion to the industry that they are following?
I submit that the Clause does not in any way present itself, more especially when I see the names on the Paper associated with it, as an honest attempt to overcome the vice of football pool betting of which we have heard so much. Football pool betting is not a vice which attacks or affects every section of the community; it is a vice which is possibly the possession of only the industrial communities of this country. The men and women—because the wives join in with their husbands when they send in a bob's worth on a coupon—who have a bob on a coupon at the end of the week are people who have only 3s., 4s., 5s., or 6s. to spare for pocket money from the wages that the breadwinner of the household receives. I submit that the arguments against the possibilities of juvenile betting arising are very weak, and I say that 85 per cent. of the people who bet on football pool betting each week know perfectly well what they are entering into. They know very well, by the weekly declarations that have gone before from every pool existing in the country, what the average pool per line of separate pools actually works out at, should they be successful; and in addition they know very well that the very success of the pool itself as a business proposition, or as a mere money-making proposition, depends entirely on those responsible for it honourably meeting their obligations should any contributor be successful in forecasting so many correct results at the end of any given week.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), whose absence at the moment I regret, that when he declared that a certain company had definitely refused to pay a winning
competitor, on the ground that he had not read the conditions, which were an additional competition to the competition that he had entered, in fairness to that company its name should have been stated, that the matter should have been inquired into under the ordinary existing law, and that if the facts alleged were found to be true, action should have been taken against the company. I am not quite satisfied with these continual aspersions on persons who are catering for a huge community, because the business in which they are engaged—

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Who could take action, and what would be the legal ground for action?

Mr. PIKE: Unless the recent Bill of the hon. and learned Member for the Moss Side Division of Manchester (Sir G. Hurst) were adopted by this House, I should suggest that the common informer should do so. [Laughter.] We have often laughed at the common informer, but when the common informer has chosen to take his stand in the courts of the country, on very rare occasions has he failed to meet with success. I really make my point in order to show the weakness of those who are promoting the new Clause. If it were accepted and betting by football pools were permitted by law, and the promoters were allowed only a certain percentage of their net weekly takings, it is obvious that we should give an added impetus to this form of betting. Those who are dubious about the existence of these pools and suspicious of the people working them and of the amount of money they pay out on winning bets would be impressed by the fact that the Government had given it statutory dignity, and would feel, therefore, that they would at least have a right to appeal to the Government for payment should any of the promoters default of his responsibility. It would increase the volume of betting, because, in spite of the pleas of the hon. Member for Bodmin and the hon. Member for Don Valley, the vast majority of people like a little flutter. Most of them like it in the open air, but a lot of them do it under a cloak, and that is the type of bettor whom the bookmaker does not like, because he is the type referred to by an hon. Member who usually defaults when there is something to pay on his account.
Why is all this talk about football betting? We have had football betting ever since I was a child at school. It was in relationship to the sport so ably and honourably represented by one of the hon. Members who supported this new Clause. I have had bets from a halfpenny to a penny and from a penny to pounds on winning jockey mounts during the week. You got a card on which was given a list of jockeys. All you did was to pay for the card. For a win so many points were recorded, and so many more were recorded for a second or a third place. When you had a given number of points at the end of the week, all you did was to send the card in to the fellow who sold you the card, and that man, acting as agent for the promoters, betted you the comparable odds to the comparable number of points gained by any given jockey during the week. There were also certain pools which referred not only to the jockeys but to the horses themselves. I am not so sure that if it had been possible to make a pool on the amount of money that had been won or lost by the owners on their own horses that had not run quite straight, there would have been pools on that as well. Declarations that horses do not run straight are not exaggerated, because many trainers and some owners have even been refused the right of entrance to respectable courses by reason of it.
I only mention these things because I realise the futility of the Government attempting to embody this new Clause in the Bill. The Bill is bad enough as it is, and I am positively convinced that, if the right hon. Gentleman is deciding to take any action in respect of football pool betting in the near future, he will be well advised to bear one great thing in mind. He is now legalising dog-race betting for two days in every week or 108 times a. year—that is, 104 days and four matinees. Betting is legalised on racecourses and totalisator betting is legalised on both courses. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to attempt to deal with football pools, he should be fair to all forms of betting and gambling and remember that football matches take place only once a week and an average of only 38 weeks in a year. If equity is to be the basis of any new legislation, in all fairness to those who enjoy this form of outlet for their vice, I ask the right
hon. Gentleman to bear it in mind. I hope the Government will not only resist this new Clause whole-heartedly, but will not in any circumstances attempt to reintroduce it in the Bill under another guise.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. R. J. RUSSELL: The proposed new Clause has a very strong point in that it would enable the Government to get some information about the amount and the conduct of these pools. It is on that point alone that I ask the hearing of the House for a few minutes. When we were discussing this question the other day, some figures which were given were challenged and I freely admit that they were given without enough consideration. Consequent upon that challenge, I have spent some considerable time in trying to find the minimum figures which can be given in regard to football pool betting at the present time. The manner in which this betting has been developed can be understood when I give the figures for two firms only—T. Strang and W. S. Murphy—during the last two years. Strang's largest pool in 1933, according to his own advertisement, amounted to £5,653; his largest pool in 1934 amounted to £10,051. Murphy's largest pool in 1934 up-to-date has amounted to £10,026. The average for both firms on the 3rd November, 1934, was £9,821 10s. and, in addition, a free competition is offered by Strang of £500 and by Murphy of £1,000 a week.
The average size of the pool of the only five firms which announce the size of pools on advertisements worked out at £6,183. Of 63 firms who advertised on the 3rd November, 25 announced a free weekly competition, in addition to pools, totaling £11,450, or an average of £458. On the 10th November investigation of the current issues of four papers showed 35 firms advertising and an additional 22 firms were mentioned in the body of the papers. This and another investigation on 18th August showed 63 firms advertising and 23 additional firms were mentioned in the body of the papers. Of the 63 advertisements, 13 included coupons for the use of readers. On the 27th October the average pools for five firms announcing them in their advertisements was £6,183, not including free competition prizes. Taking the pools of the remaining 58 firms which did riot adver-
tise at the low estimate of £2,000, this would give, as prize money paid out of the pools of 63 firms, excluding free competition prizes, a figure of £146,915 per week. It was estimated in evidence given before the Royal Commission that the average bets, the majority of which come from working-class homes, are 6d., 1s. and 2s. Taking an average bet per person per week of 1s., it would require 2,938,300 persons to contribute the total week's pools for the 63 firms.
One firm states in its circulars that it only takes a rake-off from the receipts, before declaring the size of the week's pools, of 15 per cent. It does not advertise in the Press, has no agents, no free gift scheme, and no free postage. Four firms are known to advertise their rake-off as 5 per cent. plus expenses. Firms frequently employ agents at 3s. and 4s. in the pound commission, sometimes with a bonus. One firm is known to advertise for agents at 25 per cent. commission, and another at 30 per cent. and bonus. In the investigations which I have already mentioned, 12 firms advertised free gift schemes. The expenses are known to be heavy, for they include agents' commissions, and printing coupons. One firm is known to distribute weekly nearly 1,000,000 circulars. There are also postage and large staffs. One firm is known to employ 2,000 girls. Many pools are run in conjunction with other credit betting facilities. An average total rake-off per week of 30 per cent. would be a reasonably low estimate for the 63 firms advertising. This would bring the total receipts to £209,878 weekly. At an average stake of is. per week per person it would take 4,197,560 persons to make up this amount. Of the £209,878 total receipts per week, £62,000 would be retained by the promoters of the 63 firms on the basis of 30 per cent rake-off.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member give the source of this information?

Mr. RUSSELL: I have had accountants working on it. I wanted to get some accurate figures, because of the discussion last week. There are at least another 100 firms, with large and small clientele, engaged in this kind of betting. In Liverpool, which I know as well as anybody, there are 28 firms known to be
operating, and only 10 to be advertising. It would be no exaggeration to put the minimum number of persons contributing each week to football pools at 5,000,000, and the total contribution of the football betting public at £250,000 per week. This would amount for the whole season of 37 weeks to £9,000,000 as a minimum. Last week the figure given was £5,500,000. Of this £9,000,000, the promoters would take £2,700,000 as expenses and profit, and profits alone would probably amount to £1,000;000. Having regard to facts like that, I am not surprised that the "Liverpool Echo," which I consider an authority on these subjects, should say that the bookmaker is on a certainty all the time and that the profits from his rake off are handsome enough to land the chief sponsors of "football totes" in the House of Lords if they have social ambitions. Facing figures and facts like those, I think it is time the Government gave an undertaking that we should have an inquiry into this amazing ramp, and that something should be done to control those who are living in such luxury out of the earnings of the very poor of this country.

7.46 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I do not wish to use this Clause, to which my name is appended, as a stick with which to beat the Government. I suppose there must have been good reasons for their original desire to deal with this question in the Bill, and for the fact that they modified that desire later, but in view of the facts which have been put before the House by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. R. J. Russell), and in view of what many of us know of the extraordinary ramifications, the almost universality, of this type of betting among a certain class, I am rather disappointed with the if not wholly negative at least very nearly negative attitude taken up by the Home Secretary. He used one phrase which sounded promising until one began to consider what it really meant. He said, as though it meant something rather considerable, that the Government reserved the right to deal with this matter. Of course the Government reserve the right to deal with any matter which is of public importance and which is doing harm in the community. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Eddisbury that the Government should
hold an investigation with a view to passing legislation if the facts justify it is a good one—I quite understand that the Home Secretary cannot promise legislation before he knows the facts; and I hope that before the subject is disposed of the Government will go a little further than saying they reserve the right to deal with it some how, some day.
I also have been working out figures, although of a different character from those given by the hon. Member, and I submit them just to show why it is that people, very largely young people, are attracted to this practice but how very great is the contrast between the apparent odds and the real odds that they will actually win anything. The sort of pool which is most popular in my district is one in which those participating are invited to say with regard to seven named football matches, selected, I think, because they are the "evenest" matches, those in which the result is most open, whether the home team or the away team will win or whether there will be a draw. It looks to the ordinary person as though, if he had 20 or 30 shots, he would be able to say whether seven teams, all of which he thinks he knows something about, though really he knows very little indeed about them, will win or lose or draw. I do not suppose one of my constituents in Cornwall interested in these pools—as many of them have written to tell me they are—have ever seen one of these teams play, although they are so confident of predicting the results—except Plymouth Albion.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Argyle!"]—Plymouth Argyle. It is easy to think a man can do a fairly simple thing like saying whether a team will win or lose or draw.

Mr. PIKE: Does not the same criticism apply to a horse which a man has never seen run?

Sir F. ACLAND: I am not defending horse racing. I am dealing with the subject of this Clause. I perfectly agree with the observation as to horse racing, only in that case a man generally knows the odds at which he is betting, whether he is getting 10 to 1 or 20 to 1; but here, assuming that it is an open thing which teams will win or lose or draw, the chances of anybody getting the answer right in respect of seven matches, are 1 against 2,187. That means that if a man or boy sends in 6d. four times a
month for eight months—that is, 32 times in the year out of a possible 37 or 38—he will stand to win something once in 68 years. Those are the odds against him. And if he does win on a 6d. stake he ought, with the 20 per cent. rake-off to get £50 which is not what the people who win in these pools actually do get for their 6d. The point I want to make is that with the odds so big, with no security that only a reasonable amount is deducted for expenses and profits, and the business being so extensive as the figures quoted to us have shown, I think the Government ought to have gone a little farther than saying that they reserve the right to take further action, and I hope before we pass from this Bill the Government will say that at any rate they are considering an inquiry as to how, and with what degree of fairness or unfairness, this extraordinarily ramified and extensive trade is conducted.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: I do not profess to be an expert on betting, but I think the figures we have heard to-night will be regarded as staggering not only by hon. Members but by the people of the country. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) attacked the Home Secretary to-night, first in a delightful spirit of raillery, which we always enjoy, but later the attack developed a somewhat venomous character. I may not have the gift of understanding the meaning of words, but I did not realise from the Home Secretary's speech that the Government had retired before a severe blast of unpopularity. If the Home Secretary had made the same speech in Committee last week as he made to-night there would not have been the same amount of feeling aroused as was shown in Committee, when he rather gave the impression—possibly it was quite a wrong impression—that he was more or less indifferent to this question of pool betting. As a protest against his attitude I voted against the exclusion of the pool betting Clause from the Bill; not because I want to deprive anyone of what they regard as a legitimate form of enjoyment. From some points of view we have no right—indeed, from no point of view have we any right—to say to the poor man that he shall not engage in pool betting while we leave untouched the rich man who goes in for credit betting,
because that would undoubtedly be making one law for the rich and another for the poor, a policy which I could not support.
I think my hon. Friend opposite has made out a case for control of this type of betting. We all know how heavily burdened the Home Secretary is with his official duties, and he has certainly undertaken a formidable task in even attempting to deal with betting under this Bill, but surely he will not for one moment regard as important the intervention of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike), who suggested that this system of betting should be allowed to go absolutely uncontrolled when we know that those who take part in it are, according to the figures given to-day, being robbed right and left. To me the alleged fraud on the part of the promoters is gravamen of the whole situation. I am not at the moment arguing against betting, but I suggest that fraud of this particular character—according to facts which have been given to us and have not been contradicted—should not go uncontrolled in this country. The hon. Member for Attercliffe made considerable play with the suggestion that my hon. Friend opposite had so far suppressed his Nonconformist principles as to make betting legal, but what the hon. Member opposite did say was that with a choice of two evils he was choosing the lesser, a perfectly understandable position. I do not suppose the Home Secretary will accept the Clause, but he ought to realise from the speeches we have had from all parts of the House that there is a genuine feeling that this system of betting, which is so unfair to those who are taking part in it, should not go uncontrolled by the Government.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. RAIKES: I do not suppose that the Home Secretary will regard me as an enthusiastic supporter of this Bill, but I honestly believe that if the Clause which has been submitted by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) were inserted it would make the Bill even more difficult than it is at the present time. I entirely agree that some form of control of pool betting is necessary. It is important to avoid the contamination of the youth of the country and important to avoid swindling and theft in pool bet-
ting, but I suggest that the full facts about pool betting have not been put before the House to-night, and that the idea that there is complete chaos in regard to football pools and that people have no idea of the odds applies only to a very small part of pool betting. The greater part of the pool betting in this country is run by the Football Pool Promoters Association, which claims to represent something approaching 90 per cent. of the volume of pool betting done in England as a whole. It is a big association. It has laid down in its rules that no more than 5 per cent. shall be deducted as commission by the promoters, under any circumstances whatsoever. As to expenses, expenses are examined by a chartered accountant. That is beyond a doubt; it is a fact and not mere supposition.

Sir PERCY HURD: Are they allowed to include advertising in those expenses?

Mr. RAIKES: They are not allowed to include in expenses capital expenditure for new machinery—new typewriters and so on—but I imagine, though I am speaking without the book, that they are permitted a certain degree of advertising.

Sir BASIL PETO: When the chartered accountants certify the amount of the expenses, do they observe any rule which limits the amount?

Mr. RAIKES: So far as I know, there is no exact rule in regard to expenses, but pools are not permitted under their rules to allow a profit of more than 5 per cent. I am not arguing in an attempt to score off the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) or his supporters. So far as I can, I wish to give the facts. If the figure of 20 per cent. were accepted, I am informed that that would probably wipe out many associations who are included in the Football Pool Promoters' Association, because expenses are extremely high in a business of this character. If we intend to wipe out football pools, well and good, but, if not, it would be a very improper way of dealing with them to say that we shall allow football pools but place them upon such a basis that they will be financially unprofitable. I am sure that such a result would not be the desire of any hon. Member.
Beyond the control which is secured by the examination of accountants in regard
to expenses, I understand that the accountants examine every week the money that is received in order to ensure that the proper odds are paid out to backers. The position is a little different from the isolated examples which have been quoted in earlier stages of the discussion, and which assumed that there was no check. There is a very large amount of football pool betting done in this country on business-like lines to which exception could not be taken. I will go a step further. The Football Pool Promoters' Association have always shown willingness to have some form of Government supervision. If there were Government supervision over large-scale pools which are trying to work honestly, it would be easier to wipe out whatever companies are operating on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and others.
The Football Pool Promoters' Association, which represents by far the greatest amount of business done in this country, will not have any client under the age of 21. Every client who desires to bet with that association has to sign a form to say that he or she is of age. That fact has not been realised by hon. Members, and it very largely meets the suggestion in regard to the corruption of the young by football pools. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. R. J. Russell) has suggested that football pools might have the effect of causing bribery and corruption in regard to football. I think I am quoting him correctly.

Mr. R. J. RUSSELL: That was a quotation from the report of the Royal Commission.

Mr. RAIKES: I am sorry that the hon. Member did not go further and say that the Football Association in England had denied that there was any danger of bribery in regard to football. When one realises the number of matches that take place, it is clear that it would be impossible to have bribery or the squaring of any match. A point was made by the hon. Member for Bodmin in regard to football ready money. The Ready Money Football Betting Act cannot possibly be evaded, because football pools do not deal with ready money at all. The Home Secretary has shown considerable wisdom in holding this matter up and examining
it further in order that the question of pool betting may be satisfactorily dealt with, as it must be at some time, and in a way which will not have the effect, which would follow the adoption of the new Clause, of simply crushing out of business a large number of reputable firms owing to their percentage of expenses and profits exceeding 20 per cent. That result would not only cause unemployment, but very genuine discontent among persons who are accustomed to betting in this way.
A great deal has been made of the point that football pools are an abominable form of betting, because they appeal to the poorest of the poor and help to take money which otherwise would go into the housewife's purse. To some extent that may be true, but this betting compares very favourably with a good deal of other betting in regard to horse racing or greyhound racing. For one thing the amount is limited, as there is only one chance of having a bet in the week, that is, upon the Saturday matches. Another point is that the coupon costs on an average only 2s., and very often a considerable number of persons contribute to one coupon. Under proper control there is nothing very wrong in that, and it gives many people an opportunity, in return for a small weekly sum, to have an interest in football and in their Sunday papers. There is not the temptation which exists in regard to credit betting, or in going to the races, of putting on a bit more after losing, and of going on until the whole of the wages are spent. It is a limited form of betting which is very popular, and under proper control does comparatively little harm to the population.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I was very interested in the opinions of the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) in regard to the firms who are running football pools. I assume that he was speaking with authority when he said that a maximum of 5 per cent. is deducted as profit. Is that 5 per cent. of the gross income from football betting, and is it exclusive of expenses? What is the nature of the expenses which are deducted before calculation of the odds begins? Perhaps the hon. Member would answer those questions now.

Mr. RAIKES: I have no financial knowledge as a matter of fact in regard to the matter, except that I have had a certain amount of information.

Mr. SMITH: Obviously the hon. Gentleman has little knowledge of football pool betting as it exists to-day. I say, frankly, that I do not accept his figures, and I do not think he can produce any evidence in support of them. Football pool betting as carried on today is nothing more nor less than exploitation. The hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. Pike) who, I regret, is not in his place, said that 85 per cent. of the people who indulge in this weekly flutter know what odds to expect if they win in the football pool. That statement is not true. The ordinary participant in a football pool has not the slightest knowledge of the amount of money that comes into the pool. If an inquiry were conducted into the matter by the Home Secretary, it would be found that this is nothing more nor less than a deliberate ramp. The hon. Member for South-East Essex mentioned accountants. Certainly some football pool syndicates or companies state in their advertisements that an accountant certifies the odds as advertised. That is all right, but what happens is this: Bill Smith may be satisfied when he is informed that his odds this week are 124 to one for his 2d. He may think that he is getting jolly good odds, but if he were paid out as he ought to be, he would possibly be entitled to odds at 600 to one. The accountants usually certify the odds as having been paid to individuals, but they say nothing about the odds that are taken off by way of profit or expenses.
The figures which have been given from below the Gangway will take some refuting. There are football pool companies in existence who started in a small room with a few employés, perhaps two or three girls. To-day they are employing hundreds of people and the promoters are living in affluence. I am not satisfied with the explanation of the Home Secretary as to why this matter has been left out of the Bill. When the Bill was before the Committee, I asked a question as to whether anybody financially interested in football pool betting had brought pressure to bear upon the Government to delete the subject from the Bill. I think there has been a good deal of pressure
upon the Government in order that the matter shall be left out of the Bill, and I am not satisfied. The Home Secretary states that he cannot accept the Amendment because of certain things. The hon. Member for South-East Essex who has just left the Chamber said that football betting would be uneconomic if the Amendment were carried. That may be true.

Mr. RAIKES: I assure the hon. Member that I have not left the Chamber.

Mr. SMITH: I am sorry; I made a mistake. If a limit of 20 per cent. be established, it may be that certain football pool companies, which now deduct more than 20 per cent., may be resricted in their business, but the practice would be better than the practice to-day. If the Home Secretary cannot accept the new Clause, I hope that he will lose no time in causing an inquiry into what is taking place. I am not concerned whether football pool betting be good or bad. I think I have seen as much football betting as any Member in this House, in regard to fixed odds and otherwise, but I am not concerned with the merits of the case. If football pool betting is to remain legal, the people who indulge in it ought at least to be guaranteed that they are having a square deal. Under existing conditions they are not, and, if the Home Secretary will not accept the present Clause, I sincerely hope that he will conduct an inquiry as to what is taking place.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemption of Christmas prize drawings.)

A lottery being a Christmas draw promoted in a city, borough, or district for the purpose of raising money for a local hospital shall not be deemed an unlawful lottery, provided the following conditions are observed, viz.:—

(a) not more than one such lottery shall be promoted for the benefit of any one hospital in any one year and no ticket shall be sold earlier than the month of November;
(b) no tickets shall be sold outside the city, borough, or district in which the hospital is situated;
(c) no tickets shall be sent through the post;
(d) the proceeds of the sale of tickets after payment of the expenses (including
1609
the purchase of prizes) shall be applied solely for the benefit of the local hospital whose name shall be printed on the ticket;
(e) the prizes shall not be money prizes;
(f) the accounts shall be audited by a qualified accountant;
(g) permission to hold the draw (lottery) shall be first obtained from the mayor of the city or borough or the chairman of the district council as the case may be;
(h) if any of the conditions mentioned in the last preceding sub-section is broken every person concerned in the promotion or conduct of the Christmas draw shall be guilty of an offence unless he proves that the offence under this Act was committed without his knowledge.—[Sir W. Wayland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.16 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause represents a very small concession, so I hope that the Home Secretary will adopt it. If carried it will legalise Christmas draws. The lotteries affected can only be held once a year, and the Clause provides that tickets must not be sold before the beginning of November, that the draw must be for the benefit of a single hospital in the district, that no tickets must be sold outside the city, borough or district, that no tickets must be sent through the post, and that there shall be no money prizes. This Bill legalises smal lotteries. Those affected by the Clause are not large ones, but represent what has been done in every hamlet and town throughout the United Kingdom for many years past. I am aware that it is illegal, and has been illegal for the last 50 years, but during the last 50 years hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of these Christmas draws have been held without any interference from the police except in a comparatively few instances. No money is given away, but only produce like turkeys, fat or otherwise, geese, poultry, and provisions for the household. The tickets are usually sold for about 2d. to 6d. each.
In the case of these draws, of which the number is very large, held on behalf of the smaller hospitals of this country, the proceeds represent very often quite a considerable part of the income of the hospital. Under the Bill a draw will be legal in any works or in any club. In the Automobile Club, with a membership of 17,000 or 19,000, a Christmas draw
would be quite legal; a draw held in a large works employing from 5,000 to 10,000 men would be quite legal; but under the Bill a Christmas draw on behalf of a hospital, whether small or large, for the sole benefit of that benefit, is illegal and imposes considerable penalties upon the promoters. In one instance, where it is legal, the draw would be held for the benefit of the individuals only; in the other instance it would be held partly for the benefit of the individuals and partly for the benefit of a hospital; and I cannot think it is fair that a lottery of this latter kind should be illegal.
There is no mention of charity in the Clause; it simply provides that the draw must be entirely on behalf of a local hospital, which the people in the locality would be only too delighted, as they have been in the past, to support. I cannot see how the Home Secretary can possibly resist such a proposal, since it does not mean that any money will be given or that anything of the nature of betting will take place, but simply that people invest in tickets at, say, 6d. each, knowing that, if they are lucky, they will be able to place upon their Christmas table something of a succulent nature such as a turkey or other poultry, or beef or pork, or that the housewife will be delighted with a parcel of groceries. Surely, the Home Secretary cannot say that such a Clause is going to interfere with the principle underlying the Bill. It asks very little—indeed, not as much as he is prepared to grant in other instances. I make an appeal to him on these grounds that such draws may be excepted.

8.21 p.m.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: I beg to second the Motion.
In doing so I would appeal to the Minister on the ground that, as has been pointed out, he is already legalising in the Bill small lotteries under certain conditions, and private lotteries under certain conditions. In this case there is no question of a national lottery, or a lottery in connection with hospitals in the country in general, which might he resisted on the ground that hospitals are opposed to obtaining money in that way. As a matter of fact, many of the smaller hospitals throughout the country have been for many years dependent to a considerable extent on the money which is raised year by year by means of these
Christmas draws. The Minister has agreed to except a small lottery on the principle that it is only small, and does not matter very much. If it were a big, strapping, healthy, bouncing boy, the Minister would not look upon it with so much favour, but, as it is only a little one, it does not matter. I suggest to him that this is only a little one. It can do no harm to anybody at all. It cannot corrupt public morals in any way; it is not offering a money prize to anybody who puts his money in; but it gives to working men and other people the opportunity, which they have had for years, of putting once a year at Christmas time some money into a lottery on the chance of drawing for their Christmas dinner a turkey or a goose, or it may be a bottle of whisky or something of that nature, and of having the pleasurable anticipation of obtaining a prize. In this case the whole of the money subscribed, beyond that which is utilised for the provision of the prizes, will go to a hospital. It will be a very severe blow to many of the small hospitals throughout the country if these Christmas draws are to be made illegal, and I beg my right hon. Friend to accept the Clause.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill cannot accept this proposed new Clause, for reasons which I am about to give. In the first place, the Clause is utterly unworkable. It says:
A lottery being a Christmas draw promoted in a city, borough, or district for the purpose of raising money for a local hospital shall not be deemed an unlawful lottery,
and it provides that
no tickets shall be sold outside the city, borough, or district in which the hospital is situated.
I represent a division in which, apart from a very small accident and a fever hospital, there is no general hospital at all; consequently, if any benefit is to accrue from a Clause of this kind, our people would never be entitled to indulge in the proposal at all.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: That is hardly an argument against the insertion of a Clause under which hospitals would benefit.

Mr. DAVIES: I will put another argument stronger than that. The two hon.
Members have used the spirit of Christmas in a very plausible way. Having failed in their first attempt to induce the Government to include lotteries on a large scale, they are going to use as a lever the wonderful experience that we all get at Christmas. But the biggest argument of all against a proposal of this kind is that the two hon. Members, I feel sure, are not speaking on behalf of the hospitals themselves.

Sir W. WAYLAND: I am speaking on behalf of the hospitals.

Mr. DAVIES: That is news to me. because I always understood that they had come to the conclusion that, once you admitted the principle of a lottery to raise money for the upkeep of hospitals, the ordinary contributions would fall pro rata. There are people who every Christmas now give a contribution to the hospitals in their districts. If it be thought for a moment that contributions would come from lotteries and draws, those contributions would not come any more, and, consequently, there would be no gain at all. How wonderfully well hon. Members use the working man for every possible argument! Let us see what the working man does. In some districts he pays a weekly contribution of 1d. or 2d. and in some cases up to 6d. to the hospitals. If the Clause were adopted, I think it would destroy that practice almost entirely. Instead of paying his weekly contribution, he would say, "Let us have a draw every Christmas," and he would probably take a 6d. ticket once a year and drop his weekly contribution. I could not understand the argument that this would be done for the small hospitals and not for the big ones. Why not? If it be good for the small hospitals, what is wrong in adopting the same kind of lottery for the big ones? Then I want to know what they mean by a local hospital. There are many hospitals in Manchester. You could not have one draw for a local hospital, and, as I understand the Clause, it would not apply to more than one. Unless I am greatly mistaken, the hospitals in Manchester keep their end up very well. I know of several people—there may be thousands—who, if they found the hospitals drawing their revenue from these doubtful practices, would stop their contributions, and the end would be worse than the beginning.

Sir W. WAYLAND: Will the hon. Gentleman deny that there is not a single hospital in the Kingdom which has not gained funds directly or indirectly from Christmas draws?

Mr. DAVIES: I cannot say whether that be correct or not, but if this became a regular practice it would probably be the only method of raising revenue, and we should be doing a great disservice to hospitals if we gave the impression that their income throughout the year must be derived from a single lottery at Christmas. That would be fatal to the weekly contributions of the work-people, and the object that the hon. Members have in view would be defeated by the very means that they are now proposing.

8.30 p.m.

Captain HEILGERS: The hon. Gentleman says that the hospitals are opposed to this proposal. It is true that Sir Arthur Stanley gave evidence before the Royal Commission that they had been circularised and that 80 per cent. of the replies—not 80 per cent. of the hospitals—were against lotteries.

Mr. DAVIES: Is there anything to show that any hospitals did not reply.

Captain HEILGERS: He said 80 per cent. of the replies that he had received up to the time of his giving evidence. That shows that he had not received replies from all. The report states the total receipts of the hospitals, but that is misleading, because it does not show that that was their total receipts, including investments, endowments and so forth. Their actual receipts from subscriptions must be far less than 50 per cent. of the figure given. The hon. Member said that contributions would fall off if draws were allowed. In my part of the world, we keep up our contributory schemes by having draws, which shows that the hospitals need the money. I am glad to say that the working men in the district have responded, and our contributory receipts have gone up. It is true that the big hospitals do not want these schemes, especially those in London, because they have a national appeal. It is very easy for them to issue an appeal, and the whole country responds, but the poor local hospitals, to which the Clause applies, cannot raise funds in that way. The Home Secretary has legalised raffles
and sweepstakes to a certain degree, and we thank him for that. They were illegal formerly, but they were the common custom of the country. In many parts of the country hospital sweepstakes are to-day illegal. They are equally the common custom of the country, and I cannot see how, logically, he can discriminate between the two.
I wonder how much the House appreciates the needs of the local voluntary hospitals to which the Clause mainly applies. We have only to picture a hospital. It always wants more money. People complain sometimes for that reason. If they are to give the best possible treatment or to institute a maternity ward or set up pathological or ophthalmic departments, they must have more money. In many hospitals to-day it is the custom to get up and wash the unfortunate patients at four o'clock in the morning because they have not sufficient staff. They cannot afford more staff to enable them to start the operations later. Many hospitals have been accustomed to Christmas draws. My own hospital has been relieved to the extent of several hundreds of pounds per annum by proceeds from their annual Christmas draw, and, if the privilege is withdrawn, it will make a serious hole in the receipts of not only my hospital, but many hospitals up and down the countryside. We are not asking for fresh gambling facilities, but only for the confirmation of what is going on at present, with the reservation that the conditions must be much more stringent than they are to-day.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. DENVILLE: In listening to the Debate this evening, one cannot fail to be impressed by the various remarks of hon. Members as to why and how this sort of thing should or should not be of benefit to the hospitals concerned. All that the Clause asks is that
a lottery being a Christmas draw promoted in a city, borough, or district
shall be legalised at Christmas. For many years these lotteries have been held, and the police have been good enough to shut their eyes to them and the local authorities to give them their blessing, and now we are asking that they shall be put upon more sensible lines and under control, so that they shall no longer be illegal. Yet we find that
there is opposition to the suggestion. It is foolish that anyone should suggest that it is better that the Government should control all these games of chance throughout the country, horse racing, dog racing, use of totalisators, and yet when it comes to Christmas time, that the old-established institution of the Christmas draw should be done away with altogether. I have perhaps been in more towns and villages of Great Britain than any hon. Member of this House, and I do not know of any small town in which there is not a draw or lottery of some description at Christmas. There is a provision in the proposed new Clause with which I do not agree, and that is that
No tickets shall be sold outside the city, borough, or district in which the hospital is situated.
Take the case of Newcastle-on-Tyne or Oldham or of many of the large towns where the residents of the district for many miles around come to a common centre. The Clause would prevent lottery tickets or tickets for a draw being sent into the suburbs. I consider that to be wrong. There is also a provision that
Permission to hold the draw (lottery) shall he first obtained from the mayor of the city or borough or the chairman of the district council, as the case may be.
It ought to be a sufficient guarantee to those who are apprehensive that it will not be conducted in a proper manner if the mayor, or whoever is appointed, gives permission for the holding of a Christmas draw. We do not call them lotteries, we call them draws, because usually it is not a question of money at all, but of prizes given by generous tradesmen of the town in the form of ducks, turkeys, whisky, cases of beer and all sorts of things which are seasonable at Christmas. Those who take an interest in hospitals like to help them and also to have a flutter, and so they buy one or two tickets for the hospital draw. There is a large amount of hypocrisy in connection with Christmas draws. The other day I bought from an hon. Member of this House, in this House, and during the time the House was sitting, four tickets for a Christmas lottery.

Mr. McGOVERN: Name?

Mr. DENVILLE: Certainly not. I bought them from a friend of mine. You would possibly get the shock of your life
if I told you what it was for. If you are very pressing, I will tell you.

Mr. McGOVERN: Was it the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot)?

Mr. DENVILLE: No, it was not the hon. Member for Bodmin. There is nothing in this world which is evil; it is the abuse of a thing which makes it evil. If these things were conducted properly, there would be no abuse, and therefore no evil. There is no evil in lotteries or draws, or in liquid refreshments; it is the abuse of them which is evil. There is no evil in gambling; it is only the abuse of it. Only three days ago I was in the company of several gentlemen. One was a well-known divine and another a well-known governor of a hospital, and they launched an argument about a certain incident which happened in the City some years previously. The well-known divine, a strong anti-gambler, said to his friend the governor of the hospital, "Well, if I am right I will give you £5 for your hospital, and, if you are wrong, you give me £5 for my church." That was gambling. The only thing about it was that it was not honest gambling.

Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: Who won or who lost?

Mr. DENVILLE: The cleric was betting on what was called a certainty, and all sportsmen refuse to take any money when it is a "cert." We are told that we are appealing for this sort of thing on behalf of the working men. Those who live among the working men and know the depressed areas as I do and what is happening there will realise that when a poor fellow is out of work and getting the dole and hanging about at the street corner a little flutter does him good. He will go without his breakfast, his tea or his dinner in order to have a little flutter. Think of the days and days of pleasure which that brings them. Any hon. Member of this House who has been the proud possessor of an Irish sweep ticket or a French national lottery ticket must know the pleasure that he has had for two or three weeks thinking what he is going to do if he wins £30,000. This legislation, this persecution of the small punter and the small lotteries is all wrong. We are even persecuting the poor showman for his cocoanut shy and
his little penny games. It is about time that the attention of the Government was drawn to the terrible things that are inflicted upon the working classes, which the wealthier people do not properly understand, The House would be doing the right thing in taking a broad view and allowing at Christmas time the little bethel to have its Christmas draw, the street to organise its little draw for a turkey, to allow the little mission, the Salvation Army, the hospitals, to have their draws, which should not be looked upon as lotteries but as social services which will bring alleviation of misery and also happiness to many thousands of people.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I am amazed at the desire of Members of the Government to protect working men and women from what they regard as public vices. They spend a great deal of Parliamentary time in useless discussions trying to ensure that the people of this country shall not have opportunities or outlets either for a small amount of gambling, or a flutter as it is termed, or to organise small prize draws. It has been illegal up to the present time to conduct these prize draws, but everybody has proceeded to run them and the authorities have winked at them. Mayors and chairmen of councils have assisted in these illegal things. If that has been satisfactory in the past, there is no reason to ask that it should not be allowed to-day. I have listened to a criticism of the suggested Clause. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) made a great point of the language which had been used in drawing up the Clause. The promoters of the Clause are not concerned so much with the language as with the benefits that they intend to confer on hospitals. If the Home Secretary would give the right to hospitals to run draws they would be satisfied. The Clause does not seek to compel hospitals to run prize draws, If there are any large hospitals which do not want to run draws because they can make appeals to generous donors, there is no necessity for them to run draws. One hon. Member stated that the hospitals were crippled for want of funds. It would not be proper for me to follow out that course of argument but I believe that the State ought to finance the whole of the hospitals. The State provides
money for destroying human life and not for the saving of human life.
The authorities of hospitals, like other organisations, are at their wits end to raise money and to bring back to life those who have suffered in industrial struggles, in street accidents and various diseases. This House ought not to penalise charitable institutions in regard to any method of raising money for bringing back to life and health those who are in need of aid, or to provide instruments, or wards, or salaries for staff. The hon. Member for Westhoughton said that many workmen contribute generously to the upkeep of hospitals. That is true, but in many industrial areas and in large works the people are not consulted. The pennies and twopences are deducted from their wages without consultation. That is a form of coercion of the work people. I have paid contributions to hospitals and have never questioned it, because I have always regarded it as a very good thing. Once I spent five weeks in n hospital, having fallen from a building over 50 feet high, and I greatly appreciated the splendid attention that was given to me. The people who are responsible for providing the skilled staff for our hospitals and, the general maintenance of the hospitals have a. right to promote prize draws if they are essential, if funds cannot be obtained from other sources.
What is there wrong in running these prize draws? It seems to me that Governments are developing in such a direction that very soon they will send policemen to look after the individuals when they draw their wages, to see that they do not go to a race track, or to a roulette table, or to a prize draw. The Government will have aeroplanes flying over areas at night, with searchlights, to see that people do not go out of their homes to spend their money in the way they desire. It is madness for any Government to think that by legislation they are going to tie people up and prevent them spending their coppers in the way they like. I could enumerate numerous prize draws which have been promoted. All the time they have had been illegal. Out of 70 or 100 prize draws I can only remember one that has been stopped. The tickets have been sold to policemen, magistrates, Members of Parliament and probably to Members of the other House. Churches have prize draws. They draw
for cushions, bedspreads, table-cloths and all sorts of things. They bring in palmists to tell you your fortune. They call them draws because they draw money out of the public.
Prize draws have gone on and they will continue to go on, no matter what the Government may say in any Bill. They will go on, even if they are illegal. It would be well for the Government to realise that these things are overwhelmingly popular throughout every class of society and organisation. They ought not to attempt to prevent that which is popular but not harmful, but allow the general mass of the people to go on without all these restrictions. It would be better if the Government would get on with the job that they were elected to do. Let them deal with unemployment and the other things they were elected for and not take away every vestige of liberty from the British public. You cannot buy chocolates or cigarettes after a certain hour, but you can get them from machines. You cannot buy fruit, but you can go into Euston Station and get grapes. It is lunacy.
The Government who consider themselves the moral custodians of the people of this country are making themselves the laughing stock of every decent-minded man and woman. It would be far better if they recognised that they are doing things which are unpopular and which the ordinary working man and woman will not tolerate. They want to be able to spend their few pennies in whatever way they desire. If there be fraud, then I agree that it is necessary to protect the public, but to say that they shall not buy a threepenny ticket in a prize draw for the benefit of a hospital is the height of madness. I hope the Government will learn the lesson that all these restrictions are resented. I mix with many working men and women, and they resent these attempts to place restrictions upon them. The right hon. Gentleman who is a Member for a Scottish division is now attempting to take away every single vestige of liberty from the people of this country.
The Bill from end to end is a disgrace to liberty-loving subjects. All that the Government need to do is to take ordinary measures to prevent the public being fleeced and robbed and then allow the
people to spend their money in their own way. One man's pleasure may be another man's crime. One man may keep white mice, another rabbits, and another pigeons; one man may put a shilling on a horse or a dog, and another spend 3d. in a prize draw. It all depends on your outlook, and, if people can get enjoyment and recreation in giving this support to hospitals and charitable institutions—which the Government refuse to support on a national basis—then I say that you should not penalise them or prevent the institutions raising money in whatever way they can.

9.0 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Crookshank): The last two hon. Members who have spoken have gone somewhat wide of the Amendment, and the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) was very wide of the mark when he said that prize draws would still go on in future notwithstanding the Government's attempt to suppress them. We are not trying to stop prize draws. If he will study Clause 24, he will see that not only will they go on in future, but that the private lottery raised by any institution or organisation will cover every kind of association whether it be the Carlton Club, the trade union branch or the working men's institution. They will be able to have their draws, but with this difference. Hitherto there has always been the possibility of it being stopped by the authorities, whereas in future they will be able to have them under the authority of the Bill. We are legalising these private lotteries within the limits I have described. I must contradict the hon. Member for Central Newcastle (Mr. Denville) when he says that the object of the Bill is to persecute the small punter. It is nothing of the kind. Clause 24 deals with every kind of club, institution or organisation.
I congratulate hon. Members responsible for this new Clause on having drawn it in such a form that it can be discussed again. It is not very dissimilar to the Amendment put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers), to which I replied the other day. The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment dealt with charitable objects, whereas the present Clause is limited to draws at Christmas for hospitals.

Sir W. WAYLAND: We were compelled to draw up the Clause as it is; otherwise, it would not have been accepted.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I congratulate the hon. Member on being able to do it. I am afraid that the reply which I have to give is much on the lines with what I said the other night. The proposal that lotteries should be legalised for a specific period is somewhat arbitrary. Under Clause 24 organisations and clubs Way have their own draws at any time, but here the proposal is that you should apply to the mayor or the chairman of the local council for permission to have one lottery throughout the period of Christmas. I admit that in many areas there would be only one hospital, but there are many areas where the mayor might be put in a somewhat difficult position. He might find it very difficult to decide which of the several hospitals should be the beneficiary of the lottery in that particular year.

Sir W. WAYLAND: One year, one hospital, and another year another hospital.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Combine them.

Captain CROOKSHANK: That is not what the Clause does. It says that there shall be not more than one such lottery promoted for the benefit of any one hospital in any one year, and that the tickets must not be sold outside the boundary of the city or borough. It would be practically impossible to limit the sale of the tickets of a lottery authorised by the mayor to the city boundary, or to ensure that no tickets shall be sold earlier than the month of November. A little reflection on the practical difficulties of those who are concerned in the administration of the law would lead hon. Members to realise how difficult it is to ask that an, unenforceable provision of this kind shall be put in the Bill. The hon. Member said that it is only a little one, a poor little hospital, a poor little lottery. That is true in the ease which he has in mind, but hon. Members who have been associated with hospitals and who have helped to run lotteries for local hospitals seems to lose sight of the fact that in this Bill we are trying to prevent the occasions for the rogue to get busy in the unlawful promotion of lotteries. Surely, within their experience they have known of the case
of charities, good charities, which have been taken up by some promoter, who comes along and says: "I am prepared to run a scheme, a dance, a whist drive, or a lottery, which will bring you in £400 or £500. Will you do it?" A great many charities have, I am afraid, said "Yes," and have omitted to observe that the organiser probably took quite as much as the hospital ever got.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: The secretary of a club has been known to run away with the swag at Christmas time.

Captain CROOKSHANK: That is not an argument for enlarging the possibilities for such a procedure, and to enable people to do the same thing under the aegis of the mayor. Our whole object is to try to limit these lottery provisions. The other night the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) spoke quite frankly when I put the point that if you allow draws and lotteries of this kind, even for charities and hospitals, it would almost inevitably follow that they could be run on national lines. The hon. Member said frankly, why should they not become a national sweepstake? The answer is that the House in Committee decided against national sweepstakes. The only exceptions to that which we have made in the Bill are the raffle Clause, if I may call it that, and the private lottery Clause applying to clubs, organisations and institutions. If we once open the door wider there will be no reason to stop. It will always be said: "This is only a little one," and probably with reason, and it will develop and develop and there will be no end to it. The Government thought it was sufficient to limit the exceptions either to the bazaar kind or to the private lottery.
So we are driven back to the question which I put to some of the speakers tonight, what is it that they are after? Is it raising money for the hospitals pure and simple, as one lot of speakers have said, or is it because the working man wants a flutter? If the working man wants a flutter no one is denying him reasonable opportunity under the Bill. He can have a flutter at bazaars or in the form of private lotteries. If it is a question of raising money for hospitals, with all respect to hon. Members I fall back upon the fact that the great mass of hospitals do not want it. The British Hospitals Association passed a Resolution
at Eastbourne on 2nd June, 1931, declaring that it was "not in favour of an amendment of the law affecting public sweepstakes the purpose being for the benefit of voluntary hospitals." A great many of the hospitals realise many of their willing subscribers would say to them, "Why ask me for a subscription? Why not have a lottery?" There is no answer to that question. For these reasons my right hon. Friend, in spite of the ingenuity of the framers of this new Clause, cannot accept it.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I repeat what I said the other evening, when supporting a Clause which I thought would have been called before that now under discussion. The British Hospitals Assotion did support that Clause. The correspondence on the subject is available on the premises now. If the Government could have accepted that Clause the British Hospitals Association would have welcomed it. The Under-Secretary has told us that his interpretation of Clause 24 is that a draw or lottery could take place for a voluntary hospital.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I did not say that. I said that if the working man wanted a flutter he could have it at bazaars or in the form of private lotteries. In Clause 24 it is stated that the expression "society" includes
a club, institution, organisation or other association of persons, by whatever name called, and each local or affiliated branch or section of a society shall be regarded as a separate or distinct society.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it possible for the Under-Secretary to make it clearer? If so he would satisfy those who are contending for this Clause. Can we take it that a hospital and all its contributors would be regarded as a society for the purposes of Sub-section (1) of Clause 24? If the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot give a reply now I do not complain, but a reply might save the time of the Committee.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. CLARRY: What is to prevent any of these societies scheduled under Clause 24 stating on their tickets that the surplus funds will be devoted to the local hospital? That would take place at Christmas. If I read correctly between the lines of the Under-Secretary's speech
I gather that it is possible to meet the case of this new Clause under the existing Clause 24 of the Bill. Is that clear?

Mr. LANSBURY: I want the matter to be cleared up. Suppose that a trade union branch agreed to run a lottery for the benefit of the local hospital. Is that prohibited under Clause 24? I ask the learned Solicitor-General for a legal opinion. The Under-Secretary has quoted the words:
For the purposes of this section, the expression 'society' includes a club, institution, organisation or other association of persons by whatever name called, and each local or affiliated branch or section of a society shall be regarded as a separate and distinct society.
I have tried to understand the matter, but I fear I am too thick-headed to-night to do so.

Captain CROOKSHANK: It is not for me to say what the interpretation of the Bill may ultimately be.

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

Captain CROOKSHANK: It is a question of legal interpretation. The answer to the question is in Clause 24, but as we have not reached that Clause yet I cannot deal with it now. The right hon. Gentleman will see the words there:
the whole proceeds, after deducting only expenses incurred for printing and stationery, shall be devoted to the provision of prizes for purchasers of tickets or chances or, in the case of a lottery promoted for the members of a society, shall be devoted either to the provision of prizes as aforesaid or to purposes which are purposes of the society.

Mr. LANSBURY: I know of a hospital which has lately run something—I do not know what it was—every week, relating to the test matches, and it got quite a lot of money in that way. That was done by the people of the hospital, by the organisation within the hospital. Is that legal?

9.13 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think it is clear that under Clause 24 institutions or organisations can run a lottery for the purpose of that institution or organisation. That seems to me quite clear, and I thought it was agreed that a hospital, the people running a hospital, are an organisation or institution. The specific question as to contributors to a hospital running a thing of the kind
is a more difficult one. It might depend on the constitution of the hospital, and how far it was right to say, looking at that institution, that every individual member was a member of an association. I can imagine a hospital where the contributors simply paid their money and that was all. It must be clear under the Clause that, a hospital being an institution, and as the Clause says that an institution may run a lottery for the purpose of that institution, the case which the right hon. Gentleman put is clearly legal.

Mr. McGOVERN: If a number of working men combine to subscribe 2d. per week regularly to a hospital, while they are in employment, will they be deemed to be members of a club and will it be legal to circulate the tickets among those working men?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Hon. Members, I am sure, have had experience of contributory schemes and they will appreciate that this question must depend to some extent on the actual constitution of the body concerned in the particular case. The question which the court would have to ask itself would be: Is this a body of people, having regard to all the circumstances, which would constitute "an association of persons" within the terms of Sub-section (1) of Clause 24? I should say that very probably the contributors under the scheme suggested by the hon. Member would not be members of
a club, institution, organisation or other association of persons.
for this purpose. They would merely be contributors to the institution or organisation and not necessarily members of it. But, as I say, the question would have to be answered in view of the constitution of the particular bodies concerned.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: Do I understand the Solicitor-General to inform the House that although we have legal gentlemen on the Front bench here to direct us as to what we shall do in regard to points of law when we are passing these Measures, it is the courts which are the deciding factors? Is it the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement that judges or magistrates are to say what Parliament meant when it passed a par-
titular law and that we are to leave it to them to say what is in our minds?

9.18 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: May I ask the Government to consider one suggestion? A number of societies have been formed throughout the country for the purpose of supporting hospitals. Some of these societies have been accustomed in the past to hold Christmas draws or other draws of that kind. These are not associations formed:
for purposes connected with gaining, wagering or lotteries,
but having regard to the terms of the Bill and to the holding of these draws, the question arises whether they might not be held under Sub-section (1a) of Clause 24 to be societies:
conducted for purposes connected with gaming, wagering or lotteries.
I ask the Government to consider leaving out these words in Sub-section (1a), and allowing associations genuinely formed for the purpose of assisting hospitals to continue doing what they have been doing quite innocently up to date, namely holding private lotteries in aid of those hospitals.

9.20 p.m.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: This Debate appears to have brought out the extraordinary fact that the Government are not prepared to define the meaning of a Clause in their own Bill. They tell us that this question will have to be decided in the courts. Had such a statement as that been made from the Front bench when my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary was sitting on these back benches, he would have risen in violent indignation against it as an insult to the House of Commons. I can imagine my hon. and gallant Friend in such circumstances jumping to his feet and raising his top hat. He need not sit there and smile at me now because he knows that if he were here his indignation would be violent at such a reply as we have heard to-night. I appeal to the Home Secretary. We cannot pass a Clause like this on a statement such as we have had from the Solicitor-General. Let us have the Attorney-General here if the Solicitor-General cannot tell us the legal meaning of the Clause. It is not the business of this House to pass Clauses and leave it to the courts to clarify them afterwards, probably with heavy legal expense to somebody.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: I wish to know where we stand. I happen to be a, member of a hospital organisation and an annual subscriber, and my leader is also an annual subscriber. We run lotteries and concerts and balls and we sell tickets for all sorts of things. We sell what are called "spot tickets" for dances and those who can dance and who happen to get on the right spot win a prize. Is that illegal? The right hon. Gentleman opposite knows all about these matters. I know nothing about them. I could not dance for nuts unless you provided me with a hot griddle and then I might dance with my bare feet. Apparently lotteries run for private purposes are to be all right. If they are private lotteries for churches or chapels, there is nothing wrong, but if they are run for some public purpose outside the purview of private interests they come within the law. Surely this is not a Betting and Lotteries Bill at all, but a Bill which provides opportunities for people to find fault with their neighbours.

Mr. LOGAN: It is a guessing competition.

Mr. JONES: It is a repression competition. It is an attempt to prevent the workers of the country doing what they have a right to do. I am one of the few to whom this Bill appears wrong from beginning to end. I hold that it does not touch the real question of gambling. We have heard references to the Carlton Club and the National Liberal Club. There is not a Member here who believes that either of those clubs will be touched by this Bill. They can gamble there to their hearts content. They have tape machines in both places.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that the new Clause which we are considering only deals with Christmas draws.

Mr. JONES: As Christmas is approaching I shall deal with Christmas draws. I am already a sponsor for six of them. I am president of two and a subscriber to four. How do I stand in that connection? Will any lawyer in the House tell me? There are some lawyers here—thank God there are, not more. I sold some tickets here the other night and I have had dozens of letters since asking me whether I have any more for sale.
Will the lawyers on the Front Bench tell me how much of a criminal I am and what is my sentence likely to be under this Measure?

Captain A. EVANS: Is the hon. Member aware that the Bill will not, become law until 1st January?

Mr. JONES: It ought to be 1st April. How far do I know that I am not a criminal under this Act, when it becomes an Act? The hon. Member says that I can run a lottery provided that I belong to a private association or club. But why stop the ordinary working man who does not belong to a private organisation having a shilling on a horse? I know it is a lottery. It is all a lottery. To be a Member of the National Government is a lottery.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This matter does not relate to the National Government, but to a Christmas draw.

Mr. JONES: There will be a Christmas draw next year. They will he withdrawn next time. So far as I am concerned, I claim that the Government have no right to differentiate between a private draw for a lottery and a public one. If I take a 10s. ticket in the Irish sweepstake, they have no right to tell me that I am a criminal, and at the same time tell me that I can have a shilling in a sweep in my own club in Canning Town and be perfectly all right. In our club in Canning Town we run a sweep every year at a shilling per ticket and the money goes to those who are out of work. That is not a crime. But I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will kindly tell me—although I suppose I am not big enough for any Minister to reply to me—what is the difference between my taking a 10s. ticket in the Irish sweepstake, one of which I have in my pocket, and my friends taking a shilling ticket in the sweep at the club? Am I entitled in the club to have a shilling ticket while not being entitled to have a 10s. ticket in the Irish sweepstake? I have heard some Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), talk about sending money to Ireland. The hon. Member used to be one of the champions of the old Liberal school and he supported Irish Home Rule when Ireland was taking more out of England than she is taking now. Members talk about money going to Ireland. Well,
what is the difference? Whether you send your money there or to Luxembourg or to France or to Germany you will get the same result. People will have their flutter. So far as we are concerned, if it is good enough for other people to do these things, we can do them, too. Why not have a national sweepstake?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid that under the proposed new Clause we are now discussing there is no possibility of that.

Mr. JONES: Then so long as there is no possibility of it, I will leave it out.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: I am sure that the whole House will sympathise with the difficulties of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones). We must all agree that this matter is far from being cleared up, in spite of the intervention of the Solicitor-General. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) was not in his place to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Silvertown, because the only speech delivered in opposition to this new Clause was that of the hon. Member for Westhoughton. Those of us who have attended the Debates on this Bill both in the Standing Committee and in the House will agree that we have sometimes been led to believe that the hon. Gentleman was in charge of this Bill, from the number of times he has intervened on behalf of the Government when matters of this sort arise. I think, too, that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has shown a great sense of political tact, not only in regard to the new Clause but in regard to the whole Bill, by the manner in which he has withdrawn the party Whips throughout the whole of the Committee and Report stages. He knows perfectly well—and I have seen him there enjoying the situation—that whatever his own party may say, they will get the benefit in the country of the unpopularity of this Bill. That being the case, I do think we are in a difficult position at the present moment.
The Solicitor-General, when asked to define the situation which would arise in this matter, told us that after all this would be a matter for the courts. My hon. and learned Friends in all parts of
the House may rejoice at that announcement. But it is a very serious matter for these organisations desiring to promote small Christmas draws if they have first to obtain, as they will have to obtain, counsel's opinion as to whether or not they are in order. Counsel's opinion is valuable but counsel's opinion is by no means cheap. And by the time counsel's opinion has been obtained in many of these matters, a great deal of the benefits of the contemplated draw will have disappeared. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Westhoughton has now returned to his place, because a very interesting discussion has developed in his absence. He endeavoured to resist this new Clause, and I am sorry to tell him that ever since he left speech after speech has been made in favour of the new Clause. The hon. Member will remember that when he resisted the Clause, he objected to Members bringing in the spirit of Christmas and pleading on behalf of the working man. I think it is a good thing that these things have been done. The spirit of Christmas is very relevant, and the hon. Member for Silvertown told us in a most forceful speech just now how as Christmas approached he thought it most suitable that we should be discussing this matter.
So far as the working man is concerned, surely the House of Commons in these days of universal suffrage contains few Members who do not represent the working man. Some Members have the honour and privilege of representing the Universities, the City of London and so on, but there must be a very small number of Members who are not returned here by the votes of wage-earners. I was astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman say from the Front Opposition Bench: "Why drag in the working man?" Why not? What is the House of Commons here for? Are we not here to see that these traditions which the working man himself has built up, traditions of generous and kindly actions at the festive season of the year, should be carried on? I was hoping to hear from the Front Bench some definition by which under Clause 24 it would be possible for these useful sweeps to carry on their good work. I thought that the Under-Secretary was on the point of making some such announcement, but he disappointed me at the last minute.
I cannot help linking up this new Clause with the speech we had on the last one, which was moved by the hon. Member for Bodmin and then withdrawn, although some of us would have liked to say something about it. The Home Secretary, replying to the hon. Gentleman, said something which I thought was a rather grave statement. The right hon. Gentleman said that one of the reasons why the football pool matter had been withdrawn from the Bill was the flood of propaganda which poured upon this House from all parts of the country. It would seem that those who desire to help the hospitals at Christmas in these ways have not been sufficiently vocal. They should have flooded my right hon. Friend with postcards, turned out by the gross, and with all sorts of resolutions. They should have bombarded him, and then perhaps he would have turned round and said, "This is not a suitable moment to deal harshly with this traditional question of the Christmas draw." I hope

my hon. Friends opposite will not follow the example of the hon. Member for Bodmin, but will take the Clause to a Division, because the people of the country will expect the House of Commons to take a strong line on this matter. They will not be satisfied by the explanation that there was a notice outside: "Steam roller at work," and that the Government majority was coming in to flatten out this very admirable proposal. If the Clause is taken to a Division, I shall support it, because I owe my position here to those who elected me rather than to any mechanical organisation for voting down sound proposals.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Sir J. GILMOUR: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 40.

Division No. 397.]
AYES.
[9.37 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hornby, Frank


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Howard, Tom Forrest


Albery, Irving James
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Denville, Alfred
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Apsley, Lord
Doran, Edward
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Hurd, Sir Percy


Assheton, Ralph
Drewe, Cedric
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Elmley, Viscount
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Jamieson, Douglas


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Ker, J. Campbell


Bernays, Robert
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Law, Sir Alfred


Blindell, James
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Borodale, Viscount
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lewis, Oswald


Bossom, A. C.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)


Boulton, W. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip cunliffe


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Glossop, C. W. H.
Loftus, Pierce C.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goff, Sir Park
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mabane, William


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Burnett, John George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Graves, Marjorie
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Greene, William P. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Griffith F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Grimston, R. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Carver, Major William H.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hales, Harold K.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cook, Thomas A.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Cooke, Douglas
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mason, col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Copeland, Ida
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Harris, Sir Percy
Mitcheson, G. G.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Craven-Ellis, William
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Munro, Patrick


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Croon-Johnson, R. P.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Cross, R. H.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Patrick, Colin M.


Peake, Osbert
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Templeton, William P.


Pearson, William G.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thompson, Sir Luke


Peat, Charles U.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Penny, Sir George
Savery, Samuel Servington
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Petherick, M
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Tree, Ronald


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Pike, Cecil F.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Slater, John
Ward, Lt.-Cot. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Radford, E. A.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M, (Midlothian)
Smith, Sir J. Walker. (Barrow-In-F.)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Somervell, Sir Donald
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
White, Henry Graham


Rea, Walter Russell
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Soper, Richard
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Robinson, John Roland
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Spens, William Patrick
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Runge, Norah Cecil
Stones, James



Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Storey, Samuel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Strauss, Edward A.
Captain Austin Hudson and Dr.


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Scoter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W. Riding)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Parkinson, John Allen


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Remer, John R.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rickards, George William


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Buchanan, George
John, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Thorne, William James


Dagger, George
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lunn, William



Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McGovern, John
Sir W. Wayland and Vice-Admiral Taylor.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James

Question put accordingly, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 81; Noes, 155.

Division No. 398.]
AYES.
[9.46 p.m.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Parkinson, John Allen


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Apsley, Lord
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W.Riding)
Pike, Cecil F.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Groves, Thomas E.
Radford, E. A.


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Boulton, W. W.
Hales, Harold K.
Remer, John R.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rickards, George William


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Robinson, John Roland


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Buchanan, George
Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Savory, Samuel Servington


Cape, Thomas
Hurd, Sir Percy
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Carver, Major William H.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)


Clarry, Reginald George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Lawson, John James
Templeton, William P.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thorne, William James


Cook, Thomas A.
Levy, Thomas
Tinker, John Joseph


Dagger, George
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Logan, David Gilbert
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lunn, William
Turton, Robert Hugh


Drewe, Cedric
McEntee, Valentine L.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Edwards, Charles
McGovern, John
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wise, Alfred R.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Marsden, Commander Arthur



Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fox, Sir Gifford
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Sir W. Wayland and Vice-Admiral Taylor.


NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com, P. G.
Graves, Marjorie
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n,Bilston)


Albery, Irving James
Greene, William P. C.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsay, T. B. W (Western Isles)


Assheton, Ralph
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rea, Walter Russell


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Bernays, Robert
Harris, Sir Percy
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Blindell, James
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Borodale, Viscount
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Bossum A. C.
Hornby, Frank
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Burnett, John George
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Slater, John


Butt, Sir Alfred
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Jamieson, Douglas
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Ker, J. Campbell
Somervell, Sir Donald


Cooke, Douglas
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Cooper, A. Duff
Law Sir Alfred
Soper, Richard


Copeland, Ida
Lewis, Oswald
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Mabane, William
Stanley, Rt. hon. Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainab'ro)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Stones, James


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Storey, Samuel


Cross, R. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Strauss, Edward A.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
McKie, John Hamilton
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Tree, Ronald


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Doran, Edward
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. [...]
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Ellis, Sir B. Geoffrey
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Elmley, Viscount
Milner, Major James
White, Henry Graham


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mitcheson, G. G.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Munro, Patrick
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Gilmour, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Owen, Major Goronwy



Glossop, C. W. H.
Patrick, Colin M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Peake, Osbert
Captain Austin Hudson and


Goff, Sir Park
Penny, Sir George
Dr. Morris-Jones.


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Petherick, M.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
I rise for the purpose of inquiring from the Government what their intentions are in regard to our further procedure tonight, and also to make them a suggestion which I trust may abridge our labours. We have now been at this Bill since Question Time, and we have not yet reached the first Clause of the Report stage of this long and complicated Measure. Any one who has been here through the hours of this Debate will know there has been nothing in the nature of obstruction. One speech after another has been informative, and I am certain that those who have been in charge of this Bill know more about its
dangers and pitfalls than they did when they presented it to the House. The Amendment Paper is heavily loaded with matter which can be fertile of discussion and we have not yet begun consideration of the first Clause. I want to know from the Government how long they propose to sit. Will they really go on till 4 or 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning? Their Division Lobby will, no doubt, be sufficiently well furnished to carry their Measure through, but surely it would be better to take a more reasonable view of the position as it has developed since this Bill has been brought effectually under the scrutiny of the House of Commons, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a course which would be very much in his interests and in the interests of the Government, namely, that
he should be willing to drop Part II of this Bill altogether. That is not only the opinion of the House but the opinion of the country.
There is no need to indulge in any apologetics. The right hon. Gentleman and the House are approaching the end of this Session and the beginning of what promises to be a very arduous new Session. He has dealt with an important aspect of this problem, and this other one, the question of this severe legislation against national sweepstakes, could well stand over and be treated in a private Member's Bill next year, when hon. Members would get an opportunity to look at it according to the opinion of their constituents—and the feeling of Members themselves—without its being mixed up with a Government Measure or the Government being mixed up with any of the popularity or unpopularity which may flow from it. A really sensible step, and one which I venture to suggest my right hon. Friend would be showing real statecraft to take, would be to let us have Part I, with any necessary penalty Clauses which are in Part III, and to drop Part II, and let it be a subject of reconsideration next year in view of the opinion which has developed in Parliament and elsewhere. If he does that, I am certain the proceedings can be wound up in a very easy and convenient manner, and there will be no need for the recriminatory and comminatory summings-up which otherwise will be necessary in order to acquaint the country of the confusion which exists. Considering what admissions the right hon. Gentleman has made about football pools and so forth, he really is not in a position to come out on the high morality side. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in considering this proposal, not to think of his pride. Pride is a very evil thing in conducting a Bill. It is far better to defer to the unerring instinct of the House of Commons, which never is wrong upon these matters, and, after all, it is the duty of the House to apprise Ministers of the position. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will consider this point, and if he agrees, I have no doubt we shall very soon end the proceedings; but, if not, I would like to know how long he proposes to keep the House sitting to-night.

9.59 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The right hon. Gentleman who is, of course, an old hand in the proceedings of this House, has asked me two questions, one whether I will drop Part II of this Bill, and the second how long it is proposed to sit to-night. As to the questions of dropping Part II of this Bill, I have already given an answer on that point, and it can be repeated quite shortly. We either have this Bill as a whole or we drop the Bill.

Sir W. DAVISON: Why?

Sir J. GILMOUR: A decision has been taken by the responsible Government, and has been announced to the House more than once, and that is the position by which we stand. I can understand the view of those who wish to see Part II dropped, but the truth is that the Government have decided otherwise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] They have dealt with this problem after very careful consideration, and alter having taken into consideration the report of the Royal Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am only informing the House what the position of the Government is and from that position we cannot recede. With regard to the progress to-night, I am very anxious that the House should have the opportunity of discussing the Amendments in which hon. Members are materially interested, and I am anxious, of course, that between now and when we finish to-morrow, Tuesday, the House should have a reasonable opportunity, if the House so desires, of some discussion on Third Reading.
I wish to be quite fair and to try to accommodate the House, so long as the final stages are finished to-morrow. I thought it would have been reasonable if we could have got as far as Clause 22, but I am quite prepared to consider the possibility—after the Debate has gone on for an hour we can consider where we have got to—of stopping at the end of Clause 16. That would give hon. Members ample time to finish the Report stage of the Clauses and the Schedules and have the Third Reading to-morrow. I am willing to try to meet the House, but let me be quite frank: It is essential that we should finish, and in the circumstances I beg the House to be reasonable in the attitude that it has taken up. I am anxious not to stifle discussion on these problems—I do not think that can
be said of me—and it is a matter for the convenience of the House. Many of the problems have already been discussed on other stages of the Bill, and though, no doubt, it is wise and right and proper that they should be put forward, I do not think it desirable that discussion on them should be repeated at great length. All I can say is that at the end of an hour we can see how things stand.

10.4 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: The Home Secretary has heard what was obviously the opinion of the whole House, as it also is the opinion of the country—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has said—that Part II should not be proceeded with at the fag end of this Session, and the reply of the Home Secretary to that demand of the House and of the country is that the Government have decided that it shall be the whole Bill or no Bill. I asked the Home Secretary what is the reason for that. The Government must not be intoxicated with their power. The intoxication of power leads to war, and a disastrous war, especially when that power is used contrary to the wishes of the country. The majority of this Government are Conservatives, and Conservative opinion of the country is unmistakable. The Home Secretary has justified his attitude by saying the Government had arrived at their decision after taking into consideration the report of the Royal Commission, but they are doing nothing of the kind. The idea of the whole report is to stop the abuses and the deteriorating effects, which everybody admits, of the increase of betting and gambling in this country. That is the whole purport of the report. What do the Government do? They neglect entirely to mention the question of street betting and its regulation, a subject which is put in the forefront of the Royal Commission's Report. With regard to football pools, which is the second matter which has been discussed to-day, and which the Royal Commission said was deteriorating not only to the morale of the adult population but to that of the young people of the country, the Government put it in the Bill, but finding that there was opposition in some sections they withdrew it, before the Bill was moved in another place. The only subject upon which they exert their full fire is that which is in Part II of the Bill, in regard
to State lotteries, which no one considers deteriorating or demoralising.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now discussing the merits of the Bill.

Sir W. DAVISON: I only wanted to point out the Home Secretary's reason for not accepting the proposal which has been made. I do not wish to go into the merits of the Bill, but I am urging that Part II should be dropped, because it deals with that subject which the Royal Commission said was the least useful to stop gambling. I cannot see why the Government should say that it must be the whole Bill or nothing. What is the objection to stopping the Bill here? Why are the Government exercising their brutal power in order to say the whole Bill or nothing, notwithstanding the opinion of the country and of this House? I ask the Government to be reasonable. I recognise the courtesy of the Home Secretary. As a man he is a very pleasant fellow but I do not say that the same thing applies to his conduct of the Bill. I take a different opinion upon that.
I hope that the Government, even at this late hour and in this last moment, will see the wisdom of our suggestion, not only for the sake of Parliamentary procedure, but for the sake of preventing the criminal law being made a by-word, with all these crimes being put in without proper discussion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping has pointed out that if it had not been for the House of Commons the criminal law would have been made a perfect fool of. We have done something to improve the Bill, but we cannot do much in the time at our disposal. The Government have decided to end the Session on Friday; why cannot they postpone Part II of the Bill until it can be properly and adequately discussed? I support the proposal that Part II of the Bill should be dropped.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not propose to go into the merits of the Bill but into the Government's procedure, and I support the proposal which has been made. The more I see of the Bill the more I am against it. This is the Report stage of a Bill which was not very well discussed in Committee. The Under-Secretary formerly occupied a very prominent position on the back benches, and it was one which he carried with dis-
tinction and credit to himself. He earned the distinction by facing Governments when Governments were strong, and no man stood against them with greater credit than he did. What are we faced with now? We have spent three days on a Bill which was not discussed upstairs except in regard to very minor points. It is a Bill full of detail. The discussion was carried on until three o'clock in the morning by a comparatively small House. We have now reached the two-day Report stage and some of us who have a regard for Parliamentary discussion and Parliamentary institutions, and who occupy Opposition Benches, say to the Liberals that they cannot come here and demand, for things in which they do not believe, a different class of treatment from that which is applied to the things in which they do believe.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: What does the hon. Member mean by that?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Had the Bill dealt with any other subject but betting there would have been a united demand for greater time, in the interests of full Parliamentary discussion of the controversial issues it raises. What is happening is a misnomer in Parliamentary democracy. We have just had a Division in which the figures were 155 to 81. That indicates that large numbers of Members have abstained from voting who wanted to vote with the 81. Let me point out that we are not sent to represent Tories or Labour, but to represent our divisions. It is true that we stand to a programme, but my first loyalty is to my division. It is a terrible thing to see men not exercising their vote in this House. A distinguished Member of the Government—if there is a distinguished Member—said the other day that what was wrong at the municipal elections was apathy. Who can blame apathy when it exists among the Members of the House of Commons? It is disgraceful if we walk out of the Chamber and are frightened to exercise our vote.
I would wreck the Bill sooner than agree to some of the penal Clauses of it in regard to imprisonment. It is a wrong approach to something which the great mass of ordinary working people do not look upon as a crime. Most of the people are not very bad or very good; they are very much like ourselves. The
Home Secretary was Secretary of State for Scotland, and no man whom I have known in the Scottish Office could say "No" in a kinder fashion than he; but he always says "No." I was glad that he was not in charge of the Poor Law (Scotland) Bill because we got some concessions, and if he had been in charge he would have said "No." He is built with "No." A man who has built his life on saying "No" cannot go wrong. At the same time he can seldom go right.
The Bill must be finished by to-morrow. If it is not, it breaks into one of the most human and important Debates which we have ever had, that of the depressed areas. Instead of discussing to-morrow whether a greyhound course should have a totalisator or not, we should have been discussing during the next two or three days the problems of the depressed areas—we should have been tackling the things that mattered to the common people. To decide whether a totalisator shall be kept on will not keep hope where hope is fading away. I appeal to the men who are going outside and not voting to honour their divisions. To be sent here by the electors of a division is the finest thing that can happen to a man, but the man who walks out, frightened of his Government, who betrays the House, is not fit to be a public representative. I trust that the Government will adjourn at an ordinary time and delay their Bill, if they care to do so, but I trust—and this is more important than the provisions which we are now discussing—that this Debate will have some effect on the action of those men in the House of Commons of which they are Members.

10.16 p.m.

Captain A. EVANS: Apparently, we cannot indulge in the luxury of being purists in this matter, but at least let us endeavour to be realists. After all, we realise that during the course of this Debate attention has been drawn to considerations of principle and policy which it is absolutely impossible for the House to discuss to-night, but which can only be discusesd on the Third Reading. I appeal to my right hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) to let us get on with the Bill now, and discuss within the limits of the rules of debate Committee points, in order that we may have a Debate on the Third Reading at the earliest possible
moment and give vent to our feelings on the question of the principle and policy of the Government.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: It is now a quarter-past 10, and, having been here since a, quarter to four, I think we ought to be Able to get on with the business—not this business, because I think we have come to the end of our tether, and this Bill ought to be dropped. I find here, in a House intimidated by a Government, a voting state of 155 and 81—only 236 votes recorded, and there are 615 Members of Parliament. Three hundred and seventy-nine Members of a British House of Commons refuse to vote. I have seven Amendments on the Order Paper, which I feel I must conscientiously place before the House. This Bill is unprecedented. Upstairs it was unable to get proper consideration, and it was not possible to debate Clause 1 on the Floor of the House until the Report stage. We are only just about to start the consideration of Clause 1, and it is now to be rushed through, although a large number of Amendments have been put down.
I am told, as the rest of the Members of the House were told, that the Government, when they face what is contained in the Bill, do not know, even though they have the help of their legal advisers, what they have passed, and the courts of law will have to determine what the House of Commons passes. A more ridiculous statement I never heard in my life, and yet we are told in a British House of Commons that willy-nilly we are to accept a Bill of this description, instead of its being put off until there is proper time to debate a Measure of such importance. It may be the policy of the Government of a great number to try to force through a Measure which will be for the public good, but when I find Members of the Government refusing to respond to the appeal that has been made, and being afraid of the cry outside of those who sent them here, I begin to wonder whether this is a National Government, and whether it has any right to the mandate that it is assuming. Whatever the public responsibility may be, I am convinced that a Measure of this kind ought not to be brought forward in the House of Commons unless there is a mandate for it, and unless we have time properly to discuss the Clauses that are
before us. I am not concerned either with the impressions of my colleagues or of the Liberal party, but I want to see a fair, honest, square deal. I cannot see that in the present attitude of mind of Members of the Government the Measure can get that proper thought that a Bill passing through this House should get. It is a waste of time to go on any longer with it, and I ask the Minister to withdraw it and bring it in when the Government have more time to give it full deliberation.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I put the Motion forward for the purpose of raising a point of procedure, which has been dealt with, and, in view of the fact that the Home Secretary has said that in an hour or two we can again discuss the question how far we shall go to-night, I beg to ask leave to withdrawing motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSES 1.—(Restriction of betting on tracks.)

10.21 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "four days," and to insert:
thirty days in the case of a track situate in the Metropolitan Police District and one hundred and fifty-six days in the case of a track situate elsewhere than in the Metropolitan Police District.
I will not rush what I intend to say. I want to be most careful and exact, because in my opinion this deals with the most important Clause in the first part of the Bill. The introduction of the Measure was obtained under false pretences. It was stated then that 104 days met the requirements of dog track proprietors. That was absolutely incorrect. It was contradicted, and it was admitted that a mistake had been made. It then came to this House, which sent it to a Committee and, because progress was not being made, when only the first Clause had been dealt with, the Government decided that it could only be got rid of in the House of Commons, and that it must be brought downstairs. They denied the House the right of debating Clause 1 in Committee. It is unparalleled in the history of Parliamentary procedure. We are told to-night that the Measure must be rushed so that it may be got through. The Noble Lord, when introducing the Bill, in another place said that it was not their object, and it had never entered
their minds, that they should spoil the industry or the sport that had had an innings for so long and had been able to race six days a week, but they felt that it was necessary that there should be regulations. Originally it was suggested that there should be 100 days' racing, and later it was agreed that 104 days should be given to dog racing. I hope that the Home Secretary will listen to what I am about to say because it is very important to many interests in this country, and I want to be straight and to speak without subtlety, so that everyone shall understand the position and shall know that for which we are fighting. The Bill was brought to this House and we were told, as we were told elsewhere, by the Home Secretary, that if they could come to an agreement in regard to a greater number o f days—mind you, he said he did not bind himself—if the interests concerned, the dog track proprietors of the country, could come to an agreement he might consider it. He was quite candid and did not give any definite promise that there should be an extension of the days. It was indicated that if an agreement could be arrived at, it was quite possible that there will be 111 days. That fact, which you will find in the OFFICIAL REPORT, was mentioned by the Home Secretary. It took place just before the Recess.

Sir J. GILMOUR: In order that there shall be no mistake, will the hon. Member state in which column of the OFFICIAL REPORT that reference may be found.

Mr. LOGAN: I am speaking from memory. I will be quite accurate. My memory recalls that it was on the day of the last meeting of the Committee upstairs that the promise was made. I made the remark to the Home Secretary that I hoped that when he had travelled over the moors of Scotland his conscience might prick him, and that he would come back to the House prepared to give more advantageous terms than he was prepared to give on that particular day.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Are we to understand that at some time the Home Secretary said that if the owners of the dog tracks came to an agreement as to a greater number of days, it would be accepted, and that the opinion of the
ordinary Member of the Rouse would not be invited?

Mr. LOGAN: I did not say anything of the kind. I did not say, nor did I impute, that the Home Secretary made any binding agreement. I want no misunderstanding at all. What I said was that if the interests concerned, which up to then did not agree, came together there might be an agreement. If they could agree among themselves then the question of days so far as he was concerned would be considered; but he gave no guarantee in regard to the number of days, which it was then suggested should be 111. There was no agreement. Neither the Home Secretary nor any other Minister can get beyond what I am stating because it can be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Agreement has now been made. The interests concerned have met. At least, the representatives of 60 to 80 per cent. of the tracks' in the country have come to a common agreement, and I would urge the importance of meeting them not simply from their point of view but in the interests of those who will be thrown out of work unless something can be done. It was considered at the outset that 310 days ought to be allowed. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If a legitimate sport is carried on in a legitimate manner I do not see why that should not be allowed. The Government came forward with a proposal for 104 days. So far as the Metropolitan interests are concerned they are prepared to accept 130 days and the provinces are prepared to accept 156 days.
It was definitely stated by the Home Secretary to-night that what he sought to do in this Bill was to deal with betting, which is described as the curse of the nation. The Government recognise that, but the legal authorities and those associated with the Government, got what in common parlance may be called the "wind up." They decided that because of the pressure brought to bear upon them, one or two Clauses ought to go by the board, and they withdrew them. We have had a revelation of the fact that because there was pressure before the Bill was discussed the Government withdrew something which was intended to deal with one of the worst forms of gambling. With all the £240,000,000 of gambling that goes on, they have fixed on a lesser form of gambling which they
thought it would be better for them to attack. In spite of all the rebuffs they have had in the country they have decided not to drop the Bill.
So far as the tracks are concerned, they are not carrying out the promise that was made in another place. In another place it was definitely stated that it was not the intention of the Government to strangle or put out of operation the racing tracks of the country. It was said that they were going to regulate gambling and the evils ancillary to it and make the conditions better than they are today. With that we are in total agreement. I hope that the Home Secretary will not think that anything I say is intended in a personal way. I am concerned with what will happen in the city of Liverpool and elsewhere if the number of days on which racing can take place on the tracks is to be cut down in the way proposed in the Bill. I am not concerned with the procedure of this House. I am concerned at seeing 20,000 to 30,000 people thrown out of work by the Government through this legislation. When you speak about small tracks, what do I find? This is what I read this morning:
The National Greyhound Racing Society in a statement issued during the week-end points out that unless the Bill is revised there will be 167 meetings on 146 separate days for the Metropolitan horse race goer and 108 meetings on 104 days for greyhound racing in the same area.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I know that the hon. Member does not want to mislead the House but when he is making the total of the horse races is he not adding the number of race meetings and multiplying it by the number of horses? Where does he get the 167 meetings from?

Mr. LOGAN: Perhaps the Under-Secretary does not accept the authority. It simply says:
The National Greyhound Racing Society in a statement issued during the week-end points out that unless the Bill is revised there will be 167 meetings on 146 separate days for Metropolitan horse race goers, and 108 meetings on the same 104 days for greyhound races in the same area.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I cannot accept that statement without knowing what is called Metropolitan race courses. Any total of that kind includes a great many race courses which would not be
covered by the licensing area for dog-racing tracks under the Bill.

Captain A. EVANS: I have the particulars here which might assist. There are, at Kempton Park, 16 days racing, Alexandra Park 6, Gatwick 14—

Captain CROOKSHANK: Gatwick is not in the Metropolitan area for the licensing purposes of this Bill.

Captain EVANS: The Under-Secretary overlooks the fact that the licensing area for dog racing is not the Metropolitan area. It is a joint committee for adjoining counties.

Captain CROOKSHANK: It may be.

Captain EVANS: There is nothing to prevent the authorities of Surrey forming a joint licensing committee with the County of London. At Windsor there are 10 days racing, Lingfield 14, Hurst Park 16, Sandown 21, Epsom 7, Newbury 6, Ascot 4, Northolt 53 days, of which 21 coincide with the above days, leaving 32 further separate days, giving a total of 146 days and 167 meetings.

Mr. LOGAN: I thank the hon. and gallant Member for the information. I think the information as far as the number of days and races are concerned is correct. Where the races take place I do not know, I do not know the London area. If you ask me anything about the North I can tell you. I am trusting the Minister to be reasonable. Hitherto every time he has been asked for any concession he has simply said "Nay." What is the point of view and the position of the greyhound track owners, some of whom are associated with the National Greyhound Association and some associated with other tracks in the provinces? Everyone with whom I have come in contact has said that this Bill means the break-up of his business. I have met at least 60 of these people at conferences at which I have tried to get enlightenment as to their point of view. I am fully convinced that what they have told me is absolutely correct. That being so I say that the Minister has no right whatever to do what means their total annihilation. I agree that the right hon. Gentleman has a right to introduce regulations, to do his best to abolish gambling or put it under proper restrictions, and as far as public amenities are
concerned to see that there are proper safeguards; but in this Bill he does a grave injustice to a large body of men.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think that I am in any way offensive to him personally if I speak strongly. I am not. I am dealing with the subject because I feel that many people—I am informed that at least 40,000 are in one way or another attached to greyhound racing—are likely to be put out of work. If the two days a week proposal comes into operation many of these people will become casually employed. No longer will any man or boy attached to any of these tracks be in a regular employment. That brings us up against a great problem, because it will put on the labour market men and boys and girls who will not be able to get any unemployment benefit because they come into the category of the casually employed. I ask, should we take so great a responsibility? Would it not be easier to reduce the number of days by 50 per cent.? The business must be legalised and controlled, but surely these people should have a chance of living. Having in view the overhead expenses, the numbers employed and the cost of upkeep, these track owners cannot manage unless given a greater number of days than the 104. I have foregone the extreme demand for 310 days, and I hope that the justice of my claim will be admitted. For the provinces 156 days, that is three days a week, would not be too much. As far as the London area is concerned, I think 136 days would meet requirements. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to what I have said. I ask him to consider all the people concerned and to grant this concession. I go further and say that if he is not prepared to go to the full extent proposed in the Amendment he ought to make some reasonable concession to meet the demand of these people.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. FLEMING: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish, in the first place, to draw the attention of the House to what was said by the Under-Secretary on 6th November. On that occasion when discussing Amendments in Committee he said that the reason why this Bill, in-
cluding the Clause which we are now discussing, had been introduced was,
the definite opinion expressed by the Royal Commission and supported by a great body of public opinion in this country that this is a problem"—
That, I take it, is gambling—
that had to be tackled; and it had to be tackled if at all on the basis of limiting the existing facilities for organised gambling on dog racecourses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1934; col. 892, Vol. 293.]
The Royal Commission when discussing the quantity of betting in their report pointed out that the bulk of betting in this country is on horse racing. Referring to dog racing and horse racing in comparative terms it is 12 to 1 on the horses every time in this respect. Football has half the quantity of horse racing so that really the smallest amount of betting takes place on dog racing tracks. That is, in effect, what the Royal Commission say and if I am wrong, I am sure the Under-Secretary will correct me. If the real reason for the Bill, as stated by the Under-Secretary, is to curtail facilities for gambling in this country I would like to know as a back bench supporter of the National Government why was dog racing attacked first? If the Government really mean to curtail gambling facilities in the country as a whole, why do they not attack horse racing?
Reading further the remarks of the Under-Secretary and those of other speakers on behalf of the Bill—and they are very few I must say—I do not find one instance in which any supporter of the Bill has said that it would increase employment. I am perfectly satisfied on the other hand that if passed in this form it will increase unemployment. Although I represent a constituency in which there, is not a dog track or likely to be one, I come from a part of England—Lancashire—in which unemployment is rife and we Lancastrians are not going to support anything which is going to increase unemployment in our county. I wish to make clear why I am opposing this Clause. My reason has nothing to do with betting, nothing to do with increasing or curtailing facilities for betting. It is to me purely a question of employment or unemployment. I have made inquiries from people with whom I first came in contact during the War, weavers and colliers who were in the same division with me and who were un-
able for a long time after demobilisation to obtain any employment—particularly the weavers. When these dog racing tracks were opened up in Lancashire a certain number of these men did find employment.
I do not know how many men altogether are employed in Lancashire, but I suppose that there are probably between 2,000 and 3,000 men directly or indirectly employed. I meet these men who are working on dog tracks, and also ex-officers working on the boards that are running some of these dog tracks, and I am perfectly satisfied that, if this Clause goes through as it stands in the Bill, limiting the racing and betting days to 104 in the year for the whole of the country, it is utterly useless for any Lancashire Member to expect to increase employment by supporting this Clause. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) says "Nonsense." Perhaps he is a judge of nonsense. I do not know. But I know this: When I wanted to find out whether this Clause would create or increase employment I did not go to him to ask his opinion on it, I went to those working on the dog tracks in Lancashire, where there are many tracks. Some of the men working on them were men whom I knew during the War. They were trusted by the Government, during the War when they served in the Army, and I took their opinion. I took it as being the opinion of honest men as I found them to be during the War.
I know nothing about the running of a dog track. I have never been to one, and I do not suppose that I ever shall go. Dog racing does not interest me as a sport and the betting part of it does not interest me either. What does interest me—and it is the only reason why I came here and the only reason for which I want to stop in this House—is to do something to improve employment in Lancashire. We shall not do anything to increase employment in Lancashire by passing a Clause like this. I believe from what I have heard from men understanding this industry of dog racing that if you allow these tracks to operate for only half the number of days on which they have been operated up till now they will be able to carryon. If the Government really want to curtail gambling facilities on greyhound racing tracks they would
curtail those facilities by cutting down the betting days to three days a week. They would still cut it clown by 50 per cent. But I realise now that somebody has made up his mind on this point. Although this is supposed to be a House where free discussion is allowed, I feel somehow in my bones—I have learned it to-day if never before—that whatever we say this particular Clause as it stands and as it was settled by the Committee upstairs, to which I had no access, has got to be driven through the Lobbies. I can only say this. The considered opinion of many people who are quite unbiased as regards betting and greyhound tracks or any other kind of racing tracks, but who are concerned only with the question of employment in Lancashire, is that this Clause, if passed as it stands now, cannot fail to increase unemployment in our county.

10.55 p.m.

Captain GUNSTON: I want to put two points. With regard to the desire of my hon. Friend opposite to increase employment, you could use the same argument for anyone who wanted to start casinos in this country.

Mr. FLEMING: I did not suggest increasing employment; I said that this Clause would increase unemployment.

Captain GUNSTON: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) used what I thought was a most misleading argument, that showed what is behind some of the greyhound tracks in the country, when he spoke about 167 days' horse racing near London. He knows very well that on days when horse racing takes place, there is generally a meeting on one racecourse only or on two courses at the most.

Captain A. EVANS: They do not clash.

Captain GUNSTON: But that is the whole argument. Under this Bill 104 greyhound meetings will be taking place all over the country. I believe there are 270 race tracks in this country, and if the hon. and gallant Member multiplies that by 104, he will find that there will be about 28,000 greyhound races in a year, compared with horse racing. Therefore, his argument has no background and is totally misleading.

Captain EVANS: The hon. and gallant Member must remember that on every
day that horse racing takes place, betting is allowed, and on every day of the year for practical purposes it is permissible within the law to bet on horse racecourses, but it is only permissible under this Bill on 104 days on a greyhound racecourse.

Captain GUNSTON: That is not the argument. I say that horse racing is limited by the number of days in a flat racing season, but greyhound racing is allowed on 104 days multiplied by the number of tracks there are in the country, so that to say this Bill gives a preference to the number of days on which horse racing may take place is totally contrary to the facts.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: I am sorry to discover that there is an argument between those interested in horse racing and those interested in dog racing. Some people go to the dog races, and some go to the dogs. I speak for the average workman who believes in putting a shilling on a horse but cannot attend a meeting. Therefore, he goes to dog races, because he has a limited amount of money to spend, and I want to know why he should not have that opportunity. I know some people in my constituency who go to Newmarket, but they are better off than my constituents are on the average. They are going to be allowed to gamble every day of their lives on their favourite sport.

Sir F. ACLAND: Not on every day of their lives.

Mr. JONES: The biggest bookmakers in this country have—

Sir F. ACLAND: There are 18 days' acing at Newmarket in the year.

Mr. JONES: The right hon. Member knows more about it than I do.

Mr. DENVILLE: He knows nothing about it.

Mr. JONES: As a matter of fact, they can gamble at Newmarket every day and night of the week without seeing the races. The people whom I represent go to Custom House Stadium to see the dog racing. They are not on the telephone or able to use the telegraph. They do not even belong to the Stock Exchange.
They go down to see the dog races, and they are told they must not see the dogs in London more than 130 days a year. The number of days does not count; it is the principle that matters. Some men can afford to use the telephone and telegraph and back horses and dogs every day of the week. I have seen hon. Members in the telephone room here. I have sat next to another Member of the House who has been backing horses when there were no horses running—backing them at night time. I cannot back them in the clay time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not winners."] I have never backed a winner. Stop illegitimate gambling if you like, but do not tell a workman in the East End of London that he can have only one day to the other fellow's two.
The most extraordinary argument I have heard was that used by an hon. Member about the reduction of unemployment. Lancashire is in a bad state, and, according to him, you can alleviate the situation by allowing the workers of Lancashire to go to dog races. What an extraordinary argument. I do not know the difference between a dog and a horse, and I cannot argue about them. I only know that I do not back them, although I am a supporter of my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan). We have no right to say that a rich man can back a horse or a dog any hour of the day or night, but that the workman must be limited. I am not a gambler and do not want to be. I want to get rid of the Pecksniffian cant about gambling. The man is a gambler who takes a commission from an old lady who has been left a widow with thousands of pounds; who takes charge of her property and invests it in something; and who knows as much about the property in which he invests the money as a Connemara pig does about astronomy. He is not a bookmaker, but a solicitor. He can put her money in arty wild-cat scheme he likes, and if she loses he is a virtuous person, and she has to carry the baby. If you put a "bob" on dogs and you lose your money, you are more or less a virtuous person, but the gentleman who puts the widow's money in stocks which are not any good is the perfect specimen of a decent citizen. I am neither. I have heard speeches in this Debate which
make me sick, with their sham morality. There are those in this House who
Compound for sins they are inclined to By damning those they have no mind to.
They are full of virtue where their own interests are concerned, but are full of condemnation where other people's interests are involved. Whether this Amendment is carried or not, one thing stands out a mile—that we are proposing to make a working man who puts a "bob" on a horse or a dog a criminal under certain circumstances. I used to hear it said from Liberal platforms in the days when the hon. Member was a big man in the Liberal party that it was not fair to condemn the poor man who stole the goose from off the common and absolve those who had stolen the commons from the goose. All these restrictions and regulations for the ordinary man in his recreations are becoming a bit nauseating, and I, for one, am tired of them. I do not gamble. I have never had more than Is. on anything—I could not afford to lose more. But I stand for the right of my class to do the same as other people do. They gamble in stocks and shares, and why should not I have a shilling on a horse if I want to? We are trying to make criminals of working men, but we do not interfere with other people. It is pure cant, and I tell hon. Members so straight to their faces. What about the Calcutta Sweepstake? Just imagine the Carlton Club being raided?

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that we are now dealing with the number of days for racing.

Mr. JONES: I know, and I was talking about the number of nights. Where I live the number of days will be limited, but other people will be able to gamble night and day in the places where they assemble. I say to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) and the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) that they dare not tackle the people at the top of the tree in this matter of gambling, dare not introduce legislation to interfere with their rights, and therefore, I am standing up for the right of the working man to enjoy the same rights as other people.

11.9 p.m.

Mrs. RUNGE: I do not suppose that any words of mine will persuade the Home Secretary to accept this Amendment, but though I have voted against the Government once to-night, and do not like doing it, I shall feel compelled to do it again if this Amendment is taken to a division. I do know something about greyhound racing, having owned greyhounds and raced them. My opinion of the sport was never a high one, and the longer I remained in it the worse it became. If the sport is to continue, I should like to see the standard raised, but if the number of days is reduced to 104 the standard is bound to be lowered, because the prize money will be reduced, and a great many owners will think it not worth while to race their dogs. I therefore support the Amendment.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. PIKE: I support the Amendment, more especially that I see in 104 clays' racing the great success of the multiple or monopolistic tracks. There are 270 tracks in this country, according to an hon. Gentleman who spoke a moment ago, and there is no doubt that, apart from the big tracks within the Metropolitan area, they will find it extremely difficult, if not almost impossible, to pay their way on 104 days' racing. The Home Secretary knows, because information was placed before him in Committee upstairs and downstairs on the Floor of the House, that the average attendance at provincial tracks does not exceed between 600 and 700 persons, that the average income from them is about £40 or £50 per night, and that, taken over a whole year, the income is much below the £20,000 level. From the receipts come all costs of maintenance, repair, staff, lighting and apparatus for the successful running of the tracks, and 104 days are insufficient to maintain a healthy and worthy sport. The figures are based, not on 104 days per year, but on three times that number. That is the total income of the average provincial track, from gate money, but, if you reduce the number of days by two-thirds, you naturally reduce the gate money by two-thirds. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that a provincial track, catering for 600 or 700 persons per night at an average admission fee of a shilling, can be successfully run and controlled and can produce the
best and cleanest sport with an income of about £6,000 or £7,000 per year, he knows nothing of the practical side of the control of these tracks.
It is unquestionably urgent that this sport, if it is to be run at all, must be run cleanly. I am not anxious that dog racing should get into the monopolistic hands of the interests, for instance, of the hon. and gallant Member for Twickenham (Brigadier-General Critchley) who has very fine tracks and looks after them, and demands that they shall be cleanly run, that the sport shall be honest and that the man who owns dogs and the man who bets on them shall have a fair crack of the whip. He knows that the community on whom he has to draw is so vast—

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: May point out that we have at least four provincial tracks as well as the London ones?

Mr. PIKE: That only reinforces my argument, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows quite well that, while his provincial tracks will "go west" under this Bill, his London tracks will be able to sustain the loss that will result from that.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: I do not know any such thing.

Mr. PIKE: H the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not know any such thing, he should be very glad that I am enlightening him. My own personal knowledge of the provincial track is, as I have said, that with 104 days per year under present conditions, both as regards admission charges and costs, they cannot maintain a clean, straightforward sport and show a profitable balance sheet. Therefore, the hon. and gallant Gentleman, with all this evidence, may now be able to prepare against the death of the four provincial tracks in which he is interested.
On reference to the reports of the proceedings in Committee I find that, when this matter was being thrashed out upstairs, a number of people who are now supporting the Government's 104 days condition for greyhound racing were then opposed to it. Even the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself voted twice against the Government's proposal for the insertion of the words "one hundred and
four days per year," and I find from the reports that he opposed it, not because in his opinion that was not enough, but because he thought that 111 days, plus a close season which he asked the Government to determine, would be much better than the condition which the Government have now considered it necessary to put into the Bill. This is reducing the possibility of honest greyhound racing to a farce. These people cannot run their tracks honestly with only 104 days a year, for more than one reason. The Government have legalised totalisator betting. They think that by doing that they are going to draw a line of demarcation as between those who are dissatisfied with bookmaker betting and those who are dissatisfied because the totalisator is allowed on the horse-racing track. What is going to be the result? The moment that these totalisators start, the bookmakers need only do one thing. They will say that in the case of any dog on the card they will lay 3, or 3½, or 4 per cent. above the odds declared by the totalisator. Therefore, you will have an atmosphere of, not dishonesty, but unfriendliness, attached to the betting side, which, in my opinion, if the number of days is limited to 104, will spread into the racing itself.
I am convinced that, under the present racing conditions, if a dog runs a little bit behind its form, or if it is thought that a dog had perhaps a little drop too much water before the race, or too big a piece of cold tripe, there will be "ructions" on the course; and in my opinion a reduction of the period to only a third of that now permitted will encourage these things. I would rather have no greyhound racing at all than the possibility of dishonest racing. I am convinced that, when the Government are going to recognise the legality of the sport, they should 'at least try to harness it so that, under the conditions which they permit, it will be run honestly and cleanly.
I could give numerous instances where this scheme will fail, but that has been done already upstairs, and there is no need to keep the House longer to-night. I am convinced that in the London area they can do without more racing days than the 130 which the Amendment suggests. But in the Provinces there is a big difference that demands that peculiar
concession of an extra 26 days over and above the London area and, even if the Home Secretary cannot accede to the request, I hope he will before the Third Reading suggest an alternative which will create a balance of equilibrium as between racing in the provinces and in London. With regard to the case put forward respecting the difference between racing dogs and horses, what is the good of us being hypocrites and arguing whether a track is in the London area, a county area or a borough area? We can go into our own divisions and at every street corner people are having bets on every race on the card on every day that racing is permitted. Every street corner is a gambling den under the present betting laws. It may not apply to county areas but in London and in the industrial areas my statement can be fully justified. It is no good arguing whether more horse races are allowed than there are to be dog races. Let us face the fact that there is a betting evil. Let us, if we cannot completely eliminate it by this Bill, be honest enough to say so and proceed as far as we can with this in the most practical form to alleviate the problems that confront us.

11.22 p.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I will at once acknowledge that there was nothing in anything that the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) said, now or at any time, that would cause any difference of opinion of a personal nature between us. This problem of the number of days is admittedly a controversial one. I said in Committee in a discussion running over several days that we had decided to adopt the 104 days. The Royal Commission recommended 100 days and suggested that it should be specifically limited to two days a week. We have tried not to tie down the greyhound industry as specifically as the Royal Commission would have done. A point was raised earlier as to what I had said about 111 days. It was mainly in reference to this problem of the close season that the discussion took place. I said:
Having been invited from certain quarters to increase the number of days from 104 to 111 that that appeared, on the face of it, to be a very modest request, but that I could not at that stage commit myself. I said:
'Having listened to this Debate, I am constrained to say, in view of the divergence of opinion and in view of the dubiety about the point raised by the hon. Member for Gorbals that I am not shutting my mind to considering that particular point between now and the Report stage, and unless those interests concerned with this greyhound industry can come to me between now and Report with a very much clearer and more definite unanimity than this Committee has shown, I must ask the Committee at this stage to stand by the 104 days.' Could language be clearer than that? What I have said, and what I repeat is that, if there can be reached, between now and the Report stage, some unanimity on this subject of a close season"—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee D), 26th July, 1934; cols. 311–12.]
That settles it. That is what I said. What are the facts? That between the Committee stage upstairs and the Report stage there has been no unanimity of interests concerned. Certainly, knowledge of it has not come to me. I am speaking of what I really know. It is not sufficient for one or other section to come to me about such proposals. I said quite plainly there must be some very definite and clear proposal. What is it that we are doing? It is 104 days, and there is no reason whatever under the Bill why those interests should be confined to any two days in a week. They can, as the House know, if they have the unanimity which is now indicated from certain quarters, have their close season without any interference from Parliament. They can so organise the running of their affairs and they can have, in fact, that for which they were asking. Let the House make no mistake that this was the adding of four days to the 100. [An HON. MEMBER: "Four meetings."] I am speaking of the four days in the first instance. Subsequently we tried on four particular days a year to give adequate opportunity for double meetings. We have, therefore, as far as we have thought fit and right, given these concessions. Those who think that more of these tracks can exist upon that period have never been able to produce to us very adequate reasons. All I can say is this was debated very fully in Committee upstairs. It was gone into in the very greatest detail.
We have no desire to kill this industry, and on the ground that the Royal Commission heard very carefully all the evidence and took meticulous care and went into a great variety of details, we
have given this concession of extra days and extra meetings, and we have, above all, given, and linked up the possibility of having, the totalisator. The totalisator is no small concession to this industry. It is illegal at the present time, and I want to make it clear to the minds of hon. Members what we are doing. Along with that there are certain limitations upon the amount which can be taken by the totalisator. I believe that this is a solution which, while it does riot go as far as the Royal Commission's recommendation, at any rate has been an honest and genuine attempt to let the industry run profitably and, I hope, successfully. We have heard a great many accusations of one kind or another about the way things are run. The House and the Government are not concerned with the running or actual details of the industry, any more than we should be drawn into running the great industry of horse racing. I am very conscious of the criticism which has been made from this angle or that, but I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment, and we must retain the 104 days.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. DENVILLE: As one of the intermediaries in connection with the various branches of the dog-racing interests—a purely voluntary intermediary—it may be interesting if I attempt very briefly to clear up some of the misunderstandings before the House. It seems to me strange and elementary that we should be under any misunderstanding as to the number of the race days on dog-racing tracks and on horse racecourses. It is not quite elementary to say that on the dog-racing tracks of this country the betting is purely local. That is to say, that on dog-racing tracks betting only takes place in the district in which the track happens to be, while on 260 days of the year in every town, every city, every village there is betting on horse races, which shows that the volume of betting on horse races is much more than it ever could possibly be on dog-racing tracks. You have to add to this something like 100 other meetings that are commonly called "flapper" meetings, at which horses are raced. The Home Secretary has touched rather sympathetically on a point which was brought before him some time ago, and that was that 75 per cent. of the dog-racing interests would be prepared if they could get no further
concession, to have a close season of three months in the year, and for the other nine months run on three days a week. This would mean giving the dog-racing people three days a week on which to open their tracks. This would be acceptable to them.

Mr. LOGAN: I cannot allow a statement to be made which is not correct. I have had conversations with these people.

Mr. DENVILLE: I am speaking for 75 to 80 per cent. of the tracks. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) is in a cleft stick. He is out for 135 days. Good luck to him. I hope he gets it. Failing that there is only one alternative. If they are to have their tracks open on 104 days in the year, they must have a close season. They must close down in the worst part of the year and open in the better part. We think that is a small concession by means of which the objections of the dog racing interests could be met. I am not now speaking in favour of 130, 104 or 100 days but I am simply placing the facts as I know them before the House. I hope the House will digest what I have said and that the Home Secretary in his mercy, his kindness, or his justice will see that that is a way of doing it. There might be a Clause inserted providing that certain tracks, instead of applying for a 12 months' licence, could apply for a licence for not more than nine months, those tracks to be allowed to run the number of days, 111, three days a week or, if they so desired, to run their quota off in a shorter period.

11.35 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: As one who has taken no part in the controversy with regard to dog racing, and who has nothing whatever to do with it, I made the original suggestions as to days as representing the public as a whole. It is not a question for the House to decide as to what the dog racing interests require, but what is in the interests of the general public, and as representing the general public I suggested that it was far better to be a three months' close season and that on the other 37 weeks the dog racing people should be allowed to race on three days a week. As the hon. Lady has said there are two alternatives before the House,
either to stop totalisator betting on dog races altogether or to give them such opportunities to make money as will enable them to carry on their tracks in a decent and proper way. From inquiries I have made I am satisfied that any decent track can be carried on with a close season of three months with three race meetings per week during the remaining 37 weeks. I put that suggestion forward, not on behalf of dog racing but on behalf of those people who like to go there and who want the races to be decently and fairly run. The Home Secretary arid the majority of the Committee thought it was a reasonable and fair suggestion. The Home Secretary said that it was reasonable and fair and promised to consider it before the Report stage. He now couples with the promise the statement "If I could get unanimity of the dog racing people." That has nothing to do with it. Is this great National Government the representatives of the dog racing interests of the country? Either dog racing is a thing which should be encouraged and allowed or it should be stopped. To say that be is not going to do what he considers fair and reasonable, and what the Committee and the ordinary man considers fair and reasonable because he cannot get unanimity among the dog racing people is to prostitute the position of the Government and Parliament.
Here is a proposal made by one who has no interest in dog racing. I do not know anything about their finances except what I have learned during our Debates, which I am sure would enable dog racing to be conducted in a fair and decent way and enable those who desire to see the races and put a little money on the dogs to be sure that the meeting is conducted properly. I protest against the Government refusing to accept a proposal which commended itself to the Committee and to the Home Secretary simply because the right hon. Gentleman cannot get unanimity among the dog racing interests. They will not deal with street betting and football pools because of interests, and now they will not do what the ordinary man wants, a totalisator on dog racing tracks, because there are certain tracks which say that they do not want them. It is the duty of the Government to do what is fair and right for the people irrespective of interests. Why
cannot they screw up their courage and do what is fair, what the Committee thought fair, and what the Home Secretary thought fair, that is, have a close season for three months and racing on the remaining 37 weeks of the year, which would meet the views of all reasonable-minded men?
There is a further point. If you allow the employés—there are some 30,000, I believe—to be employed on 111 days, it will enable them, I am told, to get unemployment benefit. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am told that that is so. At any rate the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised that point, and he should know. This is not a matter to be decided by the dog-racing interests but by the Government representing the people of this country, if they consider the people at all. Their attitude to this Bill is "We have decided; We do not know what the people want, but we have decided." It is a prostitution of popular Government, and the sooner the Government represent the people and not the dog-racing or other interests the better it will be for the country.

Sir B. PETO: Is there anything in the Bill to prevent the licensing authority in any locality from licensing the tracks for three days a week for the limited number of weeks in a year, as long as the 104 meetings are not exceeded?

Sir W. DAVISON: The Government say "we must have unanimity", which is like people saying, when daylight saving was being discussed, "Every one can get up at seven in the morning, if he likes". The hon. Baronet is too sensible a man to put forward that proposition.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: Since this Amendment was moved we have been suffering from the disability of the procedure adopted by the Government in reference to this Bill, in that we are dealing with Amendments to Clause 1, which a great majority of Members did not have an opportunity of discussing in Committee upstairs. Of course the upstairs jury having been changed or having retired, to deliberate on their work puts us in a difficulty. But the country will view with much alarm the short step from changing a jury to dispensing with a jury when the Govern-
ment is in a difficult situation. I am never certain whether the Home Secretary is going to appear before us in the role of Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde. When he appears as Dr. Jekyll he rests himself with confidence on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. But we have had him in the role of Mr. Hyde jettisoning the whole of those recommendations on football pools. I almost felt that the unhappy Report of the Commission is somewhat in the position of the sword of Excalibur, which was thrown into the mere but emerged from time to time. The Commission's Report has been the plaything of the Government, in what they desired done or not done in reference to the Bill.
When this Amendment was moved I thought that the most valuable contribution was from the hon. Lady the Member for Rotherhithe (Mrs. Runge). She made a good point when she said that greyhound racing depends to an enormous extent upon how far the private owner of greyhounds is able to continue to put his dogs upon the track. I am sure that in no quarter of the House would any support be given to a system under which the owner of the track would a2so be the owner of the dogs. The pernicious results of such a system must be obvious to all. Nor would it be satisfactory that those who lay the odds at the tracks should also own the dogs. It is important that the private owner should be able to continue. In view of the peculiar circumstances in which we are now discussing Clause 1 on Report, I do not know how far I am entitled to quote again some evidence which I gave in the Committee upstairs from private owners in my constituency. Although the Eleven o'Clock Rule is suspended, I do not want to weary the House by quoting at length, but I think hon. Members who were not on the Committee ought to know that I had a letter from the Sheffield and District Private (Greyhound) Owners' Association stating:
At a meeting of the above association … it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that if the Government decides to restrict the number of greyhound races to 104 per annum it will definitely do away with the private ownership of greyhounds on race tracks. It would be much better if the present number of meetings were continued even if it means no tote.
That is the view of the people who are supposed to be so anxious for betting.
The totalisator is being held out to greyhound racing like the carrot before the nose of the donkey. Hon. Members who support these proposals should consider the possible effect and realise that the responsibility for any harm that may be done to greyhound racing will lie at their door. The letter continues:
Our very strongly considered opinion is that most tracks without privately owned greyhouds will deteriorate in many ways. One of the most important is the question of the true running of the dogs. Greyhound owners watch and take note of the time their dogs take in each race they run so the trainers have always to keep the greyhounds in condition and 'up to scratch.' Thus the public get absolutely fair races. With no owners to watch the running time it may lead in some cases to fraud … Many working men, by themselves and with others, have bought dogs and the loss will be very serious; with forced sales there will be no means of recovering such losses. … Several prominent Sheffield citizens have taken up the breeding of greyhounds, employing a number of workers all of whom would be unemployed.
The writer of the letter goes on to urge that they should be allowed 208 days per annum. I am not going to debate that point now, but I would submit that here, not for the first, time in connection with the Bill, the Government have succeeded in getting the worst of both worlds. These 104 days may enable London tracks and some provincial tracks to remain solvent, but they will undoubtedly destroy the system under which greyhounds owned by working men, as private owners, can be entered and run on those tracks. Is that to be the monument of the National Government, in this connection 7 Are they to go down to history as the Government which made it impossible for the working man to run his own greyhound at those tracks? If so, while that may excite the applause of the Samuelite rump, with the ardent support of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), who is always anxious to strike a, blow at working class liberty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and has undoubtedly led to the breaking up of many working-class homes through speculations in running horses on the turf—however that may be, I cannot think that the House of Commons will endorse such a situation in this country. Once more may I warn my hon. and right hon. Friends of the consequences of the action which they propose to take? The
Government have not said, "Let us stamp out greyhound racing as a social evil." They have said that the evil may be indulged in on 104 days in the year, and we say that if that be the case, it must be permitted in the provinces at any rate to such an extent as will enable the tracks to be carried on in a condition of solvency, without resorting to some of the great abuses which I have enumerated. I think the House has, not for the first time to-day, a very grave responsibility. The hon. Gentleman opposite has performed a great service by once more raising this question, and I hope that the Government may be prepared to save some of the consequences of this disastrous Bill, which after three years of excellent work, is very gravely undermining their position in the constituencies.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I wish to support the Amendment. Those of us who were privileged to sit on the Committee upstairs and who have some first-hand knowledge of the subject involved, very much hope that the Government will see their way to listen patiently and favourably to the views advanced by my hon. Friends. I should like to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), that it is the duty of the Government, not to attempt by some nice balancing of rival interests, to arrive at a solution suitable to different groups, but to discover what is in the interests of the great mass of the people. There are very many of us who are profoundly convinced that the public welfare would be served if this Amendment could be carried and who are not in any way interested in or improperly persuaded by any greyhound interest. I myself, though I attend greyhound racing sometimes, am in no sense under the control of any greyhound racing concern, and I earnestly ask the Home Secretary to give patient consideration to an Amendment which is not promoted in any way by a desire to foster a particular trade or interest. My right hon. Friend said a few moments ago that the Government are not concerned with the running details of the industry any more than with the running details of football or any other interest. Nobody would quarrel with that statement, but it is the duty of the Government to create such
a set of circumstances as will enable the industry to be properly run. No one would wish to see the Government, least of all a National Government, interesting themselves personally and directly in the running of any particular industry or sport, but to create conditions under which it can be properly run is obviously the paramount duty of any Government of the day.
I have no axe to grind, but I was much influenced by what was said by the hon. Lady who sat opposite earlier in the debate, and I believe, after patiently listening to what was said in Standing Committee upstairs and consulting with many people qualified to give an unbiased, shrewd, and accurate opinion, that if this Amendment could be carried, and still more if there could be a properly arranged close season, it would be possible for more honest conditions to prevail on greyhound racing tracks than will be the case if the Government's conditions are imposed without qualification or change. I believe it is imperative that the honest private owner should be encouraged. Though I would not have agreed with it, I would recognise as honest and logical the complete prohibition altogether of the totalisator on all greyhound racing tracks, but I believe it would be class legislation of the worst kind. The fact that it would bring down the National Government and so be very disquieting to a number of people here, is not so important as that it would be putting on the Statute Book really partisan legislation, but if you once recognise that it is proper to allow the use of the totalisator on greyhound racing tracks, all your moral objections to that form of institution have gone, and the only reasonable ground you can take is to render such conditions possible as will enable it to be worked honestly and properly. It is because I, personally, believe that it will not be worked either honestly or properly if this small number of days is made the maximum for provincial tracks, that I do ask the Government to listen to the voice of many of their supporters and to give consideration to this Amendment.
It has often been said of this Government, with a great measure of truth, that they seem to find it easier to give concessions to their political opponents rather than to their political friends. Many of us have to go about the country
each week-end attempting to defend—which is not a difficult task—the great achievements of the National Government during the past three years. We are much concerned that when we go in the coming weeks and months to mobilise, as I hope we shall, the support of all sections of the community for the continuance of His Majesty's present Government in power, nothing that has been put forward here shall make it possible for our critics to say that we have been responsible for partisan legislation. It is a little strange and a thing worthy of note by the Government that so much of their support in these matters should be coming from those people who are most active in attempting to undermine the confidence of the country in the present Administration. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) is anxious to facilitate the passage of this Bill, and yet at week-ends he goes to the West Country and among the West Country people he endeavours to sow discontent and lack of confidence in the present Administration. I have read reports of many speeches that he has made, sent to me by a mutual friend in Cornwall. When the important question of the reform of the House of Lords was under consideration he made many speeches

which turned on the theory that the Tory party has always been the advocate of partisan legislation.

Mr. SPEAKER: This seems rather like a Third Reading speech.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I must apologise if my natural indignation at the hon. Member has made me diverge from this particular Amendment. I do most strongly hold the view that if the Amendment is carried we may be in a position to see the greyhound racing industry—which has come to stay—properly managed and honourably controlled. We might wish to abolish it. Many people supporting this Amendment would like to see the totalisator made illegal. But to permit the totalisator and at the same time to strangle it by prohibitive legislation appears to me to be an action ill-suited to any Government, and particularly ill-suited to the present Administration.

Sir J. GILMOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided; Ayes, 182; Noes, 32.

Division No. 399.]
AYES.
[12.0 m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Albery, Irving James
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hales, Harold K.


Asks, Sir Robert William
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Assheton, Ralph
Cross, R. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Crossley, A. C.
Harris, Sir Percy


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Dagger, George
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hornby, Frank


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Drewe, Cedric
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bernays, Robert
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Howard, Tom Forrest


Beven, Stuart James (Holborn)
Duggan, Hubert John
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Blindell, James
Duncan. James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Borodale, Viscount
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Hums, Sir George Hopwood


Bossom, A. C.
Edwards, Charles
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Boulton, W. W.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thorns; W. H.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Elmley, Viscount
Jamieson, Douglas


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
John, William


Broadbent, Colonel John
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Ker, J. Campbell


Burghley, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kirkpatrick William M.


Burnett, John George
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Butt, Sir Alfred
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Loftus, Pierce C.


Carver, Major William H.
Goff, Sir Park
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mebane, William


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Graves, Marjorie
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Cook, Thomas A.
Greene, William P. C.
McKie, John Hamilton


Cooper, A. Duff
Grimston, R. V.
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Copeland, Ida
Grundy, Thomas W.
Magnay, Thomas


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Stones, James


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rickards, George William
Storey, Samuel


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Strauss, Edward A.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Tate, Mavis Constance


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Munro, Patrick
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Tree, Ronald


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Nunn, William
Salt, Edward W.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Patrick, Colin M.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Peake, Osbert
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Pearson, William G.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Penny, Sir George
Slater, John
White, Henry Graham


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Smith, Sir J. Walker. (Barrow-In-F.)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Pybus, Sir John
Somerset, Thomas
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Radford, E. A.
Somervell, Sir Donald
Womersley, Sir Walter


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)



Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Soper, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Commander Southby and Dr.


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Spans, William Patrick
Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Ramer, John R.


Banfield, John William
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Bateman, A. L.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Buchanan, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Templeton, William P.


Cape, Thomas
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Levy, Thomas
Wise, Alfred R.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
McGovern, John



Davison, Sir William Henry
Petherick, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Pike, Cecil F.
Mr. Logan and Mr. Fleming.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Question put accordingly "That the words 'four days' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 164; Noes, 40.

Division No. 400.]
AYES.
[12.7 a.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Cross, R. H.
Harris, Sir Percy


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Crossley, A. C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Albery, Irving James
Dagger, George
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Assheton, Ralph
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Howard, Tom Forrest


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Drewe, Cedric
Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Drummond-Wolff, H. H. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)


Banfield, John William
Duggan, Hubert John
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Bernays, Robert
Edwards, Charles
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Blindell, James
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Jamieson, Douglas


Borodale, Viscount
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
John, William


Bossom, A. C.
Elmley, Viscount
Ker, J. Campbell


Boulton, W. W.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Everard, W. Lindsay
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Burghley, Lord
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Burnett, John George
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe


Butt, Sir Alfred
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Loftus, Pierce C.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mabane, William


Cape, Thomas
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Goff, Sir Park
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McKie, John Hamilton


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Graves, Marjorle
Magnay, Thomas


Cook, Thomas A.
Grimston, R. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Cooper, A. Duff
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colone John


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Spens, William Patrick


Munro, Patrick
Rickards, George William
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Stones, James


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)
Storey, Samuel


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Strauss, Edward A.


Patrick, Colin M.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Peake, Osbert
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Pearson, William G.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Penny, Sir George
Salt, Edward W.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Petherick, M.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Savery, Samuel Servington
White, Henry Graham


Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don valley)


Pybus, Sir John
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Radford, E. A.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Somervell, Sir Donald



Ramsbotham, Herwald
Soper, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Sir Victor Warrender and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Ried, James S. C. (Stirling)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.



NOES.


Bateman, A. L.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Bragg)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Broadbent, Colonel John
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Buchanan, George
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Carver, Major William H.
Levy, Thomas
Templeton, William P.


Clarry, Reginald George
McGovern, John
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Copeland, Ida
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Todd, Lt.-Col, A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Pike, Cecil F.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Remer, John R.
Wise, Alfred R.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.



Greene, William P. C.
Runge, Norah Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hales, Harold K.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Mr. Logan and Mr. Fleming.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

12.16 a.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, "That further Considerations of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
I do so in order to ask the right hon. Gentleman how far he proposes to go to-night. I think he will appreciate that Members on the Government benches have occupied practically the whole time daring the evening, and it seems to me, in view of the number of Amendments that remain, that he might well consider the advisability of adjourning now, in the hope that we may have time not only to complete the Report stage but also the Third Reading to-morrow.

12.17 a.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: As I said when I was asked this question earlier, I am very anxious not to press the House unduly. I had hoped that we might have reached Clause 22. It is very much a matter for Members whether they wish to debate some of these points on Amendments or on the Third Reading. It is a question of time. The longer we take over the Report stage, the shorter will be the time available for the Third Reading. I would only say that there are one or two of my Amendments which are really purely drafting Amendments,
and one or two in which I am making concessions, and I should have hoped that we might make such progress as at least to reach Clause 16. That would leave a reasonable period of time for the remainder of the Report stage tomorrow, and also time for the Third Reading. I hope that this suggestion will meet the wishes of the House.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend will not be under any delusion on the situation in which he and his Bill now stand. He seems to think he holds some sort of whip over us. Really what he says is: "If you do not neglect your duty of discussing all the questions which arise on the Report stage, then you will not be allowed to have a proper debate on the Third Reading." But supposing that the House chooses to discuss, and thinks it is its duty to discuss, these matters all through to-morrow and tomorrow night, and right on till the next day, then the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to enforce the Third Reading debate, and all his attempts to push matters forcibly upon the House may be brought to a standstill. I think he would be well advised to allow the proceedings to be terminated now. We have only
reached Clause 1 so far, and he wants to get, in the small hours of the morning, another 15 Clauses. There are a great many Amendments on the Paper besides those which he has put down, and there are many points of interest and importance which will have to be discussed; but there are other reasons, apart from keeping the House up till two or three o'clock to get a few more Clauses to-night, which I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider, and which I would ask the Government to consider. It seems to me that this is a matter where my right hon. Friend should have some consultation with the Leader of the House.
I do not know why the Leader of the House is not present. He ought to be present. I have often seen the House in great difficulties because it does not have superior guidance given it at critical junctures, the Departmental Minister unable to take his eyes off the immediate present, his amour propre excited and his obstinacy aroused, driving the House into a very difficult position. Those are the times when I have again and again seen the Prime Minister come in and say "You must not do this." I strongly recommend the right hon. Gentleman to press this proposition no further. If he attempts to do so, I do not think he will make progress in proportion to the labour and inconvenience that will be caused. As for to-morrow, I hope before we come to-morrow he will have had an opportunity of taking better advice.

12.21 a.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I have spoken only once to-day. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shame!"]. That may be, but my observation is that when I speak I attract a larger audience than the hon. Member who made the interruption. I have spoken only once, though I hold very strong and definite views about every aspect of this Bill. I was once on the Committee upstairs and whenever any proposal was put forward the Home Secretary tried to bully us. He said he would withdraw the Bill, as if that mattered in the least to us. There is only one reputation that will crash if the Bill is withdrawn and that is the reputation of the Home Secretary. We do not like these bullying tactics. In the next stage he threatened that he would bring the Bill downstairs, as if one cared about
that. Now he threatens us that if we talk now we shall be denied an opportunity of speaking on the Third Reading, as if he alone was in charge of the business of the House. I had no intention of getting up until he once again adopted the attitude of a bully. I am not going to be bullied by the Home Secretary or any other Minister. I hold my own views strongly and never hesitate to express them. I never hesitate to vote in accordance with what I think to be right. I have just got up to make my protest against the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to bully the House of Commons.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Much as I should prefer to adjourn now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the Home Secretary give us any idea of the time he wishes us to sit or must he get Clause 16 before we adjourn?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I had hoped that we might get to the end of Clause 22, which would have left a reasonable amount to be done to-morrow. I have no desire to keep the House, but I ask them to go to the end of Clause 16. There are not very many Amendments and it will not, I think, be an undue tax.

12.25 am.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: I very much resent the words of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) addressed to the Home Secretary. I have known the right hon. Gentleman ever since he was a little boy. He really had the hardest head I ever came across, and I often skinned my knuckles on him. He never showed any signs of bullying. The dogged perseverance which we all admire in the young has gone on all his life, and I hope he will not give in on this matter. Although I am ready to sit up all night and vote against this beastly Bill, I know well all the time that the Home Secretary absolutely believes in it, and will carry it through somehow or other.

Sir W. DAVISON: As the Home-Secretary disclaims all idea of bullying, or of dictating to the House, why does not he accept the Adjournment? He said that he was willing to meet the views of the House. The House wishes to adjourn now, so why not accept it? [HON MEMBRRS: "No!"]

12.26 a.m.

Mr. WISE: I wish to ask the Home Secretary if he can satisfy us on one point arising from his speech. Assuming that the gloomy prognostications of the Opposition to the Bill are fulfilled and the Debate on the remaining Clauses on. the Report stage is unduly prolonged, is he proposing to ask the House to take the Third Reading of this very important Bill possibly after the hour of 2 a.m. tomorrow, or is he not?

12.27 a.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I be permitted to make a suggestion? Why should

not we finish the Report stage of the Bill To-morrow and then take the Third Reading on Thursday, cut out the various Resolutions which we have to take and begin them with the fresh Session. That suggestion may possibly ease the situation, and may meet the general approval of the great majority of the House.

Question put, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 31; Noes, 156.

Division No. 401.]
AYES.
[12.29 a.m.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Bracken, Brendan
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Buchanan, George
Levy, Thomas
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Burnett, John George
Logan, David Gilbert
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
McGovern, John
Wise, Alfred R.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.



Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Petherick, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hanley, Dennis A.
Pike, Cecil F.
Sir William Davison and Mr. Herbert Williams.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.



Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Edwards, Charles
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Agnew, Lieut.-Com, P. G.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Magnay, Thomas


Albery, Irving James
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Aske, Sir Robert William
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Banfield, John William
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Fox, Sir Gifford
Motion, A. Hugh Elsdale


Bernays, Robert
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Blindell, James
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Morrison. William Shepherd


Borodale, Viscount
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Goff, Sir Park
Munro, Patrick


Boulton, W. W.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Nunn, William


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Graves, Marjorie
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Greene, William P. C.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Grimston, R. V.
Peake, Osbert


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Pearson, William G.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pybus, Sir John


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Harris, Sir Percy
Radford, E. A.


Carver, Major William H.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hamby, Frank
Ramebotham, Herwald


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramadan, Sir Eugene


Cook, Thomas A.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Copeland, Ida
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rickards, George William


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Jamieson, Douglas
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
John, William
Runge, Norah Cecil


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Cross, R. H.
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Crossley, A. C.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Dagger, George
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Salmon, Sir Isidore.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salt, Edward W.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Savery, Samuel Servington


Denville, Alfred
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Drewe, Cedric
Loftus, Pierce C.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Mabane, William
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)


Duggan, Hubert John
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Somerset, Thomas


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
McKie, John Hamilton
Somervell, Sir Donald


Soper, Richard
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Tree, Ronald
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Spent, William Patrick
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Stones, James
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)



Storey, Samuel
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Strauss, Edward A.
White, Henry Graham
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.



Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "calendar."
This is consequential on an Amendment made in the Committee Stage and defines the year.

12.34 a.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether this is consequential on anything that was passed in Committee upstairs or downstairs? After sitting on a Committee which spends more time on the preliminary stage on Clause 1, which we are now discussing, and less time, including the small hours of the morning, on the subsequent numerous Clauses, all we are told is that it is consequential on something we did in Committee. I was in the Committee on Clause 1, and there was no Amendment to it in regard to the calendar year which makes this consequential. I have never heard of anything being consequential on something which happened afterwards. As a rule "consequential" means something which follows an earlier Clause. We are now told that something is consequential on Clause 1 because of something contained in Clause 20. That is a new doctrine of "Consequential" which I do not understand. There was a time when I was called a mathematician because I took a degree in it. I never understood Einstein to mean that what happened before happened afterwards. This is a new doctrine because of the new procedure which has been adopted in regard to this Bill, and I hope the Home Secretary will give some more adequate explanation.

12.36 a.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: This Amendment is to bring the Clause into line with Clause 20, and it defines the year. As I explained in Committee here, it had been hoped that the Bill would have been through in time to start on 1st January, hut that has not been found possible, and it is therefore made the 1st July. Therefore, the licensing of tracks will begin on the 1st July, 1935, instead of on January 1st.

12.37 a.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that is at all a satisfactory explanation. I must say I was surprised that the Home Secretary should not be able to explain it and to put the House in a proper position to decide on the point. This is a question which stands in a peculiar position, because, as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) reminded the House, it was never discussed in Committee of the whole House. That shows the slovenly manner in which this Bill has been conducted. Here is the right hon. Gentleman who during an enormous period in Committee upstairs never detected an obvious discrepancy and incongruity between the wording of Clause 1 and of Clause 20. It is astonishing that he should have overlooked a thing like that. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman has been so busy adjusting all the little interior questions or is so buoyant with his feeling of the high morality that he has established and the blows that he has struck against gambling in this country that little matters like defining the actual year—which is of real importance in this matter—are out of his mind.
I still do not understand his preference for the word "year" instead of "calendar year." I think that "calendar year" would be much better; it is more precise. Evidently when this Bill emerged from the machine it was considered that it should be the calendar year, and I am sure that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) will agree with me. I do not see why this Bill should be weakened by the abolition of an expression which has a most respectable tradition attached to it. "Calendar year" is clear and plain to me. The word "year" leaves it doubtful as to whether it may not be the Income Tax or the financial year; but the calendar year is a year that corresponds most accurately to the movement of the celestial bodies and will enable us best to deal with this difficult matter. I am
most anxious as the House has been discussing very seriously the question of 104 or 130 days that we should know if by substituting the word "year" for "calendar year" any complications may arise. I should like to hear the views of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) on this matter. We must know the reason why the word "calendar" is to be struck out. I hope we shall not dismiss the matter in a hurry. I think we ought to stand by the word, and I shall vote in the Lobby for its retention. I feel that I should be able to make up my mind on the subject with more conviction if I had a fuller explanation of how the different interests are affected by this change. It would also be a great advantage if the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office who has been sitting silent all the day would display those brilliant talents that have won him advancement and would give us some clear reason in support of it. After all, we have heard little from the Home Secretary, and I must say that when he chooses to speak he never attempts to bully the House. He just attempts to overlay it, bringing pressure to lay down on top of it, crushing the life out of it in the most friendly and genial manner. I can understand his desire to do right and to get rid of the word "calendar," because he wants to lighten the Bill. If he wants to get on he should lighten it still further and get rid of Part II. However, in the absence of a fuller assurance as to the effect of this Amendment I shall feel it my duty to vote against the deletion of the word "calendar."

12.45 a.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I am completely at a loss to understand what the Home Secretary means. I am anxious that the right. hon. Gentleman who has just spoken and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) should know exactly what we are going to do. I am most anxious to know whether there is any Parliamentary significance in the word "calendar," and what is its definition. Why is there, any difference between the word "calendar" and any other. I think the Government ought to be able to give us the information and I am trying to get the information in an orthodox way. I would be very pleased if the Minister could tell us what he really means by this Amendment.

12.48 a.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I hope that the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary will explain this matter to us a little more clearly. The right hon. Gentleman for Epping (Mr. Churchill) thought it ought to be a calendar year starting from the 1st January, and I would like to ask why this Amendment has been put in at the last moment. Why it is that this House after all this time in Committee is asked to make this change now? Why have the Government only now found out that "calendar" is not the proper word? Why not lunar year? I really think we must have some further explanation, or we shall have to divide against the Amendment.

12.49 a.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I should like to say a few words at this point. The Bill when it was introduced was intended to come into operation on January 1st, 1935. It became obvious when the Bill came back here that not only would it be too short a. time for the local authorities, but that it would be unfair and unreasonable to greyhound racing. It was to meet that difficulty that the year was altered to let July, and we have deliberately deleted the word "calandar" so that the year may run from 1st July. That date was devised in the interests of all concerned.

12.51 a.m.

Mr. G. BRAITHWAITE: The Home Secretary has referred to Clause 20, which he said would be affected by the Amendment. I am unable to find there any reference to the calendar year.

12.52 a.m.

Mr. BAILEY: This is a very important matter, and it is not our fault that it is being discussed at this hour of the morning. We feel that we cannot allow this thing to go through without a little more explanation from the Home Secretary. I should like an assurance, before deciding how to vote on this matter, that it is not due to pressure from the various interests, such as the football interests, or the greyhound interests, that this alteration is being made. I cannot help feeling that this is going to cause considerable trouble and an amount of confusion. You have your lunar year, your fiscal year, your Income Tax year, and your calendar year. Now you are going to add a "dog" year. It is a point about which
we are very serious. I think we ought to have from some other Minister a further word. I appeal to the Liberals to come into the Lobby with us on the matter. I would appeal to them for support, because we are making a stand for the liberties and the privileges of Parliament and insisting that this thing shall not be pushed through without adequate discussion. I hope that we shall have some explanation before the matter is forced to a division.

12.57 a.m.

Mr. DENVILLE: The hon. Member who has preceded me has suggested that the Liberals should come into the Lobby with us. The best Liberals are on this side of the House, and they always come into the Lobby with us. The question of the word "calendar" is worthy of consideration. Does it refer to the ordinary calendar, or to that to which Home Secretaries are more attached—the Newgate Calendar?

12.58 a.m.

Mr. WISE: I would like to put this point. The word "calendar" was probably inserted in the Bill for some definite purpose. If this new year is to run from 1st July to 30th June, it should be so stated in the Bill. I believe that I am right in saying that in every enactment where the ordinary year is tampered with it is laid clown that the year shall be from such and such a date to such and such a date. This is a point of substance. If it is to run from 1st July to 30th June, it should be stated that that is to be the dog racing year.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Restriction of Betting on dogcourse.)

Mr. SPEAKER: Several Amendments are down to this Clause. They all deal with the same subject, and they can all be discussed on the first Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan), and this is the only Amendment on this Clause that I shall take.

12.59 a.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, to leave out "eight" and to insert "sixteen".
There will be certain arrangements entered into in regard to the question of racing, and, if we read Clause 4, we find
Betting by way of bookmaking or by means of a totalisator shall not take place on any day on a track being a dog racecourse, in connection with more than eight dog races, and betting by way of bookmaking or by means of a totalisator on the results of dog races shall not take place on any day on such a track as aforesaid except during one continuous period not exceeding four hours.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Could we know exactly which Amendment the hon. Member is moving?

Mr. SPEAKER: I called the first Amendment of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division. I thought a discussion on all the Amendments could take place on that first Amendment, the only Amendment I shall take on the Clause.

Mr. LOGAN: I was explaining to the House that as the Clause stands it certainly does not allow a sufficient number of races to take place on a dog course and gives one continuous period of four hours. That in my humble opinion is wrong. Rightly or wrongly, the Home Secretary takes this view, and because it had been proposed that four hours racing would be sufficient he accepted it and inserted it in the Bill. But for the purpose of tracks and dog racing, this will not only be a limitation of the power of racing, but it will be of very little use indeed to give them the four hours. If my memory serves me rightly, an hon. Member who sits on the back benches suggested four hours, and I think it has been backed up by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Brigadier-General Critchley). Although he stands for sport in his own industry and has maintained his own particular standpoint, he made a fatal mistake when he seconded the Amendment that was moved from these benches. He has retracted his step since then, and now we find in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman something totally different from that to which he agreed when the Amendment was pressed and carried for the insertion of four hours.
My object in moving my Amendment is that there shall be a sub-division of the four hours. It is essential that the position should be understood. When I note that two days per week is to be allowed and that there is to be no extension and that six days are being taken away, I realize what was in the mind of the Home Secretary when he was so em-
phatic in Committee in telling us there must be fixity of days and that we could not alter it and in no circumstances would he change that fixity of days. If fixity of days is the sum and substance of the Government's opinion, as represented by the Home Secretary, then fixity of hours must be the logical consequence. Your cannot possibly have fixity of days unless you have fixity of hours. There are many hon. Members of this House who only come in casually to listen to the Debate and then walk out and who are not thoroughly conversant with the subject matter under discussion. They merely go into the Lobby to give a vote, but they do not know and they are not very particular where they go. It is essential, therefore, that one should give an explanation of what is really meant by the Amendment.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Is not that a reflection on Members of this House in the discharge of their duties? I submit that the hon. Member has no right to make a statement of that kind.

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not hear anything to which I could object.

Mr. LOGAN: With all due respect, if in expressing an opinion in regard to the routine of this honourable House, one is not allowed to tell the truth, then I do not intend for a moment to be untruthful.

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Gentleman was moving an Amendment.

Mr. LOGAN: My remark was only due to the interruption. I shall certainly confine myself to the subject matter before the House. I intend to explain what is meant by the Amendment, because I feel it is necessary. It is like speaking to boys at school. Some require to be educated as to what is meant by the Amendment, and I must therefore enter into the details of the matter which we are discussing. How is it possible for hon. Members who are not au fait with this subject to know all about this particular point. It is necessary to explain what is in my mind even to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), who pooh-poohed the idea. If such a proposition is hard for the hon. Member for Bodmin, it must be exceedingly hard for others. I give him credit for think-
ing that he may anticipate what I am going to say, but I have very grave doubt whether he will understand what I mean when I do say it. It may be a very simple thing, but a little ambiguity at times is essential in a House so conversant and up-to-date in everything which applies to the general welfare of the public. It is very interesting to find some one sitting on the front bench of the Labour party who understands nothing about what I am now speaking of. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) requires some enlightenment in regard to the Bill and this particular Clause. As I understand him, he makes out that he knows nothing at all about either the tote, dogs or racecourses. Therefore, I am sure he will allow a humble back-bencher to make this explanation. I am serious about this position. It may be a joke to some hon. Members, but I am getting down to the seriousness of the Amendment.

Mr. HANNON: It may be a joke to the hon. Member, but on a point of Order, I submit that it is up to the hon. Member to come to the Amendment before the House and not to waste time.

Mr. LOGAN: I have been in a good many places in my time, but I have never known so many people want to assume the Speakership or the Chairmanship at any meeting as we find here. I always understood that in a, well-regulated meeting place, the gentleman who occupies the Chair was left to conduct the meeting, but this may be a different place. Now I want to come to the Amendment. If this Amendment be not accepted, preferential treatment will be given to the tracks in London which belong to a syndicate. If you do not have fixity of hours just as you have fixity of days, then any syndicate which owns a number of tracks—three for instance—will be able to have a six hours shift—three two-hours—with the same dogs, the same staff, and at much less expense. Any business man will understand that it would be from 3 to 5, from 6 to 8 and from 8 to 10, taking the hours as you like, so long as you get three shifts of two hours each. It is possible that if you have non-fixity of hours and have three shifts of two hours, they will be able to move from place to place. If they took the full limit of four hours, these tracks could not carry on their business because they do not want
four hours. Not all the tracks, as I understand it, will require more than two hours to carry out the races, and, if there are two hours that are not required, my contention is that if the Home Secretary be willing, as he has been, to accept four hours for the allotted number of races he might agree to this still further concession.
I am suggesting that the allocation should be two divisions of two hours. It is not only a fair but a right and proper thing that the House should agree to it; but, if the purpose that lies behind the four hours is to strangle in a subtle way the business, then we ought to examine the question further. I say that the Amendment which I have put forward is a reasonable one and one that the Government ought to accept. I agree with the hon. Member who spoke recently that, if stringent rules are to be laid down to carry out the law of the land, then these men should be given reasonable facilities to carry on their business. I have no interests in dogs, but I have some interest in seeing that those people who have been put to great expense have reasonable opportunities to carry on their business.

1.14 a.m.

Captain A. EVANS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so for two reasons. I honestly believe that it is a reasonable, practicable and fair one. Also it will give the Under-Secretary an opportunity of demonstrating for the first time in the course of the Debate that he is very sincere and honest—[Interruption]—I did not mean to use those words—that he really means what he says when he tells the House that the Government are anxious for this industry to run on an honest and profitable basis. This Amendment to the new Clause was put down in Committee by the hon. Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt), and I understood him on that occasion to feel a little anxious of advantage being taken of Parliament to allow dog racing to take place from early morning to late at night. For that particular purpose he thought it was in the interests of the public that the number of races should be curtailed. I do not think that anyone will quarrel with the hon. Member, but there is not the slightest doubt that if you limit the num-
ber of races to eight per day, instead of 16 as is suggested here, you will find it will result in putting out of business definitely and permanently the small provincial tracks, and that, I understand, is not the desire of the Government.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what he means by putting out of business existing tracks? Is he aware that a track is not obliged to have a totalisator?

Captain EVANS: I mean that where they have totalisators and bookmakers on the track and where they are only allowed to have eight races it will cease to be au economic proposition. The hon-Gentleman knows that it is a question of turnover. It is all very well for the big London tracks, for they can deal with a large turnover and meet their expenses in that way; but the same thing does not apply to the smaller tracks in the provinces where the turnover is only £30 or £40. That is the purpose of this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman for Balham when he put down this Clause in Committee expected to compromise on another figure, and I think, if he were satisfied that the result of his Clause would be to close the small provincial tracks, he would be willing to agree to this Amendment. I submit to the Government, particularly as the totalisator is allowed by the Bill and as 6 per cent. is allowed to be deducted for expenses, that it is reasonable to suppose that if the public attend and invest their 1s. or £1 the amount will be the same whether there be eight or sixteen races. There is no difficulty for the large tracks, but for the small tracks in the provinces where people should have the same opportunity as people in the metropolis they really and honestly cannot meet their expenses. In view of that fact, I hope he will show that it is not the desire of the Government to suppress these small tracks and that he will accept the Amendment.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: I rise to propose an Amendment to the Amendment.

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The hon. and gallant gentleman cannot do that yet; but he can speak on this Amendment. Should the House decide to delete the word "eight," he can then propose his own Amendment.

1.20 a.m.

Brigadier-General CRITCHLEY: First of all I would like to thank the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) for what he has said. Eight hours are too few to enable a great number of tracks to live. A number of tracks which ought to live will go out if limited to eight races. The hon. Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt) who proposed the original Amendment for eight races per meeting, stated that we are bound to realise that it will not allow small tracks to continue; it will drive them out of existence. I do not think that is the intention of the Home Secretary, and I am perfectly certain that it is not the desire of the House. The Clause limiting the races to eight per meeting will do more to close down the smaller tracks than any other Clause in the Bill. It is perfectly right to say that the larger tracks can exist with eight races per meeting, and it is correct to say that the smaller tracks cannot exist on eight races per meeting. There are now 270 tracks operating in England, Scotland and Wales, and a very large proportion of them will go out anyway. They only came into existence on the spurious assistance of the totalisator, when they were allowed to run it as they pleased. A number of tracks which have a right to exist will disappear because they cannot exist on eight races. When they were running eight races before their expenses on the totalisator ran to 7½ to 10 per cent. If they were allowed to run 12 races per meeting, they would probably "break even" with the 6 per cent. They certainly cannot do so on any less number of races per meeting.
The Government must realise that a certain number of tracks run five, six or seven meetings per week. Where they are running five meetings with seven races, that is 35 races a week, this Clause will cut them down to 16 races per week. You have given them the totalisator, but they cannot operate the totalisator on a 6 per cent. expenses basis. The totalisator cannot he operated by them without losing money. They will have only admittances for two meetings where they had five before. Therefore, they must go out. It is my information that if this Bill goes through with eight races, and two meetings per week, instead of having 270 tracks, you may have from 25 to 35. I should be very surprised if you had any
more. Is that the intention of the Government? If it is, it is up to them to let this Clause stand as it is. If they want to help genuine tracks, those which have run the sport honestly and fairly, they must give some concession. That is why I recommend 12 races. A great number of greyhounds have been bought by the rank and file. There are 43,000 registered greyhounds on registered tracks. There are a great number of tracks not registered, and that means a great number of other greyhounds. On the registered tracks there are 22,000 owners. If the Clause goes through un-amended there will be with regard to one track I have investigated the following results: The trainers must get rid on that one track of 200 dogs and dismiss 25 men who have been making an honest living in decent surroundings. That sort of thing will be multiplied all over the country. They have been running the sport fairly and cleanly on six to eight races per meeting. This will impose a very great hardship on a very large number of tracks, which should, by virtue of the way they have conducted their business, be allowed to carry on.

1.27 a.m.

Mr. LEVY: I have listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down, It is obvious from what he has said that if this Clause stands as it is the larger tracks will be satisfied with the half loaf, although they desire to get the whole. The smaller tracks will go out of existence. Now that, if it be true, cannot be the intention of the Government. The intention of the Government, as I understand it, is to control this matter in such a way that there shall be an improvement in regard to betting and that, as far as possible, gambling propensities shall be limited while at the same time giving the tracks a square deal. It seems to me that a Bill which would have the effect of killing the tracks, because of its implications, is not one which would redound to the credit of any Government. The more I see of the Bill the more I am convinced that this Clause will create great injury. There is no doubt that it will create hundreds of thousands of enemies to the National Government. You are bound to create enemies where you create injustices. They were carrying on hoping for the totalisator, but our business, as I understand it, is not to consider the
various interests of the larger tracks and neglect entirely the interests of the smaller tracks if we are to control racing throughout the country in the true sense of the word. I agree with what has been previously said in the Debate that the Government's duty is to study all interests, and not the interests of any particular association or track or dog owners. Are they studying the public interest as far as this provision is concerned? Are they going to close down the smaller tracks up and down the country and only keep the larger ones going?
I consider that the number should be increased. I do not suppose for one moment that the right hon. Gentleman will depart from the cast-iron front that he has built up at the very beginning of this Bill. He has told us that he must have all or none. Take it as it is or leave it, is his attitude. I am not unfriendly to the National Government when I oppose this Measure. I am opposing it in the interests of the National Government and the loyal supporters of the National Government. If the Clause goes through, it will not be a victory for my right hon. Friend; it will be a victory for the Chief Whip, but in gaining that victory he will strain the loyalty of all his supporters almost to the breaking point. I ask, is it worth while? What benefit or what good is it going to do? The only benefit that will be obtained, as far as I can see—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better keep to the Amendment.

Mr. LEVY: The Amendment, if it be carried as it stands now, will certainly be of advantage and to the benefit of those interested in the larger tracks who will be able to carry on. In other words, it is hoped to create a monopoly for a few of the larger tracks to the detriment of the smaller tracks. Therefore, I consider that a great injustice will be done if it be carried through in its present form, but I have no hope that the Government will make any Amendment.

1.32 a.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The righteous indignation of the hon. Member has almost driven me to tears. His solicitude for the National Government was painful, and he showed such a fervent desire to preserve the small tracks in the Pro-
vinces that one would have thought the provincial track was the essense of virtue and that there was not a single thing to be said against it. One would have thought that the Home Secretary was out to murder the sport almost in its childhood and that that was something which would mean for the National Government a loss of hundreds of thousands of votes. But let the House remember what the hon. Member thought about this Bill on the Committee stage. Then he suggested that there was a good deal that was crooked about some tracks.

Mr. LEVY: That is the reason why want to see the Government bring in a Bill which will properly control the sport, but I do not want to see them bring in a Bill which will create injustice and. not control.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If that be so, then where there are tracks as straight as a corkscrew the Home Secretary can persuade them to straighten out all the corkscrews. Perhaps some Government, if not this one, will deal with the industry in the right direction. Within seven miles of my home, in anticipation of the proposed tote, there was recently a provincial track established that ran whippets and had a motor-car to pull round the rabbit. A man would have a threepenny bet and there was a shilling entrance fee. He received two seven-penny tickets for which he could get two seven-penny pints of beer.

Mr. LOGAN: Where did the hon. Member say that was?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member said that, if the Opposition were supporting the Government, he suspected the item that they were supporting. If the hon. Member for the Elland division (Mr. Levy) supports a proposal without having heard a word of it, then, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, I know that I should be right if I voted on the other side. We started upstairs with a proposal for 312 days. Then the law of diminishing returns came in, and next it was 260 days. Afterwards it was 208 days, and finally it was 156. Now the Home Secretary is proposing 104 days or four days more than was recommended, plus the re-establishment of the totalisator, with the 6 per cent. rake-off as against 3 per cent. when the Bill was originally introduced in another
Place. Now they want sixteen races instead of eight on every day. Let any hon. Member work out what this 6 per cent. rake-off on sixteen races means, assuming a total betting sum of £100 to start with and assuming what will be left in the pockets of the betters at the end of the sixteen races. The fact is that at the end of sixteen races the backers would not have anything left at all, but something would have gone to the tote. After the failure to get 208 or 156 racing days, this Amendment for sixteen hours instead of normal seven or eight which characterizes every track in the country, is merely another way of asking the Home Secretary to give them 208 days instead of 104. That is equivalent to four meetings a week; on two days a week.
I agree that lots of tracks are going out of existence. There was a track referred to by one member as having an attendance of over 300. The other night the attendance did not reach 100 and once they had an attendance of four, inclusive of two newspaper men. A week later they decided that the track should be closed clown altogether. That is a place within a mile of Doncaster in my Parliamentary division. Hon. Members will understand that as the result of the words I have uttered on this Bill I have been subjected to criticism by the owners of that particular track. Because I felt that the Home Secretary was doing the right thing I ventured to support him in Committee and on the floor of the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not at this late stage going to accept this Amendment.

1.41 a.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: It may be a convenience if I explain the Government's attitude on this Amendment. When the Clause of the hon. Gentleman for Balham (Sir A. Butt) was before the Committee, I gave an assurance on the instructions of my right hon. Friend, that we would consider the proposal. It certainly met with the approval of the Committee for there was a division on the closure; but not on the main question. When the hon. Member for Balham put down his Clause we were prepared to agree to it because we thought it was a reasonable proposal. The Royal Commission Report and
recommendations were more stringent than the proposals contained in the Bill.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how they define a meeting.

Captain CROOKSHANK: They did not define a meeting, but it is pretty obvious from the evidence which was given that a meeting is the ordinary number of races that take place. My view is that there is no question that the greyhound racing spokesman said that at a normal meeting seven or eight races took place, and they all agreed on that. A difficult question then came up as to how we could define a meeting in the Bill and the hon. Gentleman found a way out. The Government have been very careful throughout the Measure to try to do nothing to control the sport itself. We have always directed our minds to finding words that will deal with the betting part of it. When the suggestion of eight races within a period of four hours was made, it seemed to us reasonable, and we adopted it.
The hon. Gentleman in moving his Amendment said that four hours were not required and that they should be separated into two sections. Four hours seems to be a reasonable time so as to allow some time before the first race. You must also have some time after the last race to allow the public to collect their winnings. I think that the four-hour proposal for eight races is a perfectly reasonable description of a meeting. If the hon. Gentleman has his way and it be divided up into two sections of eight races, that is exactly the same as giving 208 meetings in a year. The hon. Gentleman said that if you do not do something of that kind you will drive the smaller tracks out of existence and increase the turnover of the larger tracks. The Government are concerned with the public interest in the matter. The Royal Commission said that there were too many opportunities for betting and that there should be certain restrictions imposed by legislation. That is what we have done. May I conclude by reminding the House that the proposals of the Government as the Bill now stands were agreed to in Committee and that they all hang together.

Sir W. DAVISON: The Government will hang with them.

Captain CROOKSHANK: There are three proposals that hang together, the 104 days, the eight races on each day as a meeting, and the 6 per cent. rake-off of the totalisator. If you alter the balance by increasing the number of races or meetings, then you have to consider whether the 6 per cent. on the totalisator is too much and whether, as the Royal Commission suggested, it should be reduced.

Captain A. EVANS: Is it not a fact that the percentage of 6 was put in the Bill by a Government Amendment and that the question of the days was in the Bill before the Clause was introduced.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The 104 days had already been passed by the Committee. If you alter one, you alter the basis of the other two. The Government have come to the conclusion that the three Principles of the 104 meetings, the eight races, and the 6 per cent. are reasonable in the public interest, and, that being so, I hope that the House will not pursue the matter further.

1.50 a.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I must say that to me the Amendment appears perfectly reasonable. I see it from this angle. If the Government say that gambling is a complete evil and we have to eliminate the greyhound courses entirely, that is one method. But to attempt this limitation of greyhound racing by the backdoor method of closing them down altogether is another matter. The Government say that they desire the dog tracks to continue, and they recognise that there is a certain popular demand for dog tracks. Then they proceed to legislate to restrict the number of meetings. There have been only three occasions on Which I have been on dog tracks—once in London and twice in Glasgow—for the simple purpose of obtaining information. I am completely against gambling. I do not gamble myself, but I like on different occasions to have the opportunity of putting a shilling on a horse, or anything that I desire. Other people desire to put a shilling on a dog on a dog track. If this Amendment were carried, and they were given the right to run tracks on two days a week and to run an afternoon or evening session, I do not think that there would be great harm done. If the Government are prepared to allow it, they admit that there is some demand and reason for
running it, otherwise, they would completely close it down. If it be admitted by the Government that there is a demand then I can only say that there are many people who attend a dog track in the afternoon who cannot do it in the evening. There are men on the night turn in and out of season. If they want to go in the afternoon and spend a shilling on the track why should the Government prevent them.
The Government talk a great deal about this 6 per cent. on the totalisator. I fail to see how some of these tracks can be run on that basis on two days a week. If you recognise the right of these people to run these tracks, you might recognise their right to run 16 races on two days and to break the sessions up if they desire to do so. I have no interest in racing. I have a greyhound track in my own division, and nobody has approached me and asked me to do anything. I have only had three postcards from employes in it. My only opportunity of getting points is from the hon. Members who have spoken. It has been obvious to me that the Government are using their powers of coercion to drive through a Bill which is unpopular with all sides of the House, except a few members of the Liberal party who are cranky in extreme and bigoted against every form of sport. They would like to see everybody indoors by eight or nine every night until next morning and to allow them to have no liberty of any kind. Looking at the thing from a desire for the greatest amount of liberty to other people I cannot understand the reason of it. One of the most degrading things for a popular assembly like the House of Commons is that we should have Whips going round and applying coercion to drive people into the Lobby. There is no body of opinion in this House in favour of the Bill, and no body of opinion in the country in favour of it. If I were a Conservative, it would antagonise me to the last degree to see the Government using their power in this way to override the opinion of the House and of their supporters in the country. Looking at it from the point of view of the man in the street, we cannot be guided and legislated for by cranks. The general public are tired of this sort of thing. The Government are very far from the principle of safeguarding the
interests and rights of every individual, but they are determined to drive the measure through.

1.58 a.m.

Sir A. BUTT: I do not wish to make a general speech criticising the whole of the Bill. As the Amendment is to a Clause which the Government accepted two nights ago I should like to explain. We restricted it to eight races a day. It is a middle course, and that is what I nave tried to defend in this particular Clause. If it were permissible to have an unlimited number of races on each day, it is clear that substantially most of the tracks would gain the major portion of their profits by the operation of the totalisator. In practice, it would only be a question as to the number of races which would be run each day. Ten, twelve or sixteen races would be given and the totalisator would provide to the promoters profits very much larger. It would mean that the public would be induced to bet much more. Everyone who has read the Report of the Royal Commission must be depressed by the evidence given before that body pointing out how serious would be the consequences if unlimited opportunities for gambling were allowed through the tote. I hope therefore that the Home Secretary will resist the Amendment to increase the number of races which take place each day.

2.1 a.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think it would be in the interest of progress if I again inquired at this stage, after another two hours have passed, if the Home Secretary would let us know what his ideas are as to the amount of political pressure he intends to put on the House to-night. In order not to break into the discussion which is now in progress, I would ask leave to move the adjournment of the Debate.

Mr. SPEAKER: I could not accept that Motion now. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to ask the Home Secretary how long he is going on, I should raise no objection.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I am bound by your ruling. Therefore, I will put a question to the right hon. Gentleman and ask him how long he intends to go on. Nevertheless,
I would submit to you, Sir, for your ruling, that, although you may not be prepared to accept the Motion if related to some inquiry as to the intentions of the Government in respect of business, you might perhaps he prepared to accept it on the ground that it is high time that the Leader of the House was here. Are we to be left in an unprotected position, entirely at the mercy of a Departmental chief, who has not only lost his head in regard to the Measure—no, I will not say lost his head, but who has lost his sense of relationship to the House and to his fellow Members? Would you, then, Sir, accept the Motion if I put it in these terms?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, am afraid I could not accept it on those terms either.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Perhaps you will allow me later in the proceedings to put the proposal to you again. I do not, of course, for a moment argue with you at all; I only submit, as a suggestion for future action, that I might be permitted later on to raise the question again. I understand that at this moment you are not prepared to accept the Motion for the adjournment. Therefore, I will continue with the point which I raised and ask the right hon. Gentleman what course he proposes to take. Is he going simply to plod and plug on in an endeavour to put down by main force his fellow Members in this House or is he willing to set some terms to the severity of his demands on them? I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some satisfaction. I am sorry if in speaking in this way I have exhausted my right to speak on this Amendment, because I have had to make this request in the course of my statement. The Under-Secretary made a speech which, if delivered from any other part of the House, would have been described as mere obstruction, and of a very high order.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is rather exceeding my ruling. I told him I could not accept a Motion "That the Debate be now adjourned." It is very customary for the Leader of the Opposition to ask how far a Minister is going, but we must confine ourselves simply to that question.

Mr. CHURCHILL: With very great respect, I was not going against your
ruling in any way, but, having put my question, I was returning to the question under Debate and to the speech of the Under-Secretary. I was proceeding to point out what he had said about the complications of this provision for 104 days, and so on.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. If he is making a speech, it must be founded on something. I could not allow him to move the adjournment, and I said he must confine himself to merely asking the question.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask for your ruling, Sir. If I confine myself to merely asking how far the Minister is going, shall I exhaust my right to speak on the Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, the right hon. Gentleman will not have exhausted his speech on the Amendment now before the House.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Then I will confine myself strictly to asking the Home Secretary how far he intends to go.

Sir W. DAVISON: On a point of Order. You, Sir, have said that it is customary for the Leader of the Opposition to raise this point. Are you aware that the Socialist Opposition have on this matter become the supporters of the Government and that it is the people on this side of the House who wish to make the inquiry? The Lord President of the Council or the Prime Minister said, when I asked him, that he was aware that the Eleven o'Clock Rule had been suspended every night since the House resumed, and I asked him whether he intended to force things through.

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the Question before the House.

2.7 a.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: We are discussing this group of Amendments. We have now had a considerable discussion upon them, and I should hope that an early decision will be reached. One is a drafting Amendment of mine, and on Clause 7 there is another drafting Amendment. Then there is an Amendment which I understand an hon. Member wishes to move, and a further drafting Amendment follows on Clause 16. I shall be quite
satisfied if we reach Clause 16. The Amendments in my name are really drafting Amendments.

Sir W. DAVISON: Why not leave them until to-morrow?

2.8 a.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I expected that answer, and I propose now to deal with the subject before the House. We understand from the right hon. Gentleman that we are to go on. I wish to deal with the speech delivered by the Under-Secretary in which he described the discussion of the issues before us—104 days, eight hours each day, and what he prefers to call—using a very vulgar and common expression borrowed, apparently, from the gambling dens of Chicago—the rake-off of 6 per cent. He explained that if any one part of this meticulously studied and most beautifully balanced system were deranged or disturbed, everything else would have to be disturbed. For instance, if the 104 days had been 130, then I suppose the races that take place would have had to be reduced or increased and that would have had its effect on the rake-off. I think it is very demoralising to see the way in which His Majesty's Government have gone into the gambling system.
The discussion on this subject really raises the issue how far we are to consider it our duty to favour the development of dog racing in this country. I do not agree with my hon. Friend opposite, for I look with a tolerant eye on the establishment of this system. As a matter of fact, this is a frightfully important Clause for it is the motive power of the Bill. It is this charter to the dogs which is giving the right hon. Gentleman a great measure of support in carrying forward his proposals. It is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. I cannot complain at all. The Under-Secretary has given us a very full explanation—the kind of explanation to which the Chief Whip takes exception because of its length. At any rate, it was very clear; in fact, so clear that I turned to the hon. Member beside me, and said: "I believe that he has been put up to kill his own Bill, but that cannot be true." I hope it may be possible for us to have a gleam of light on our discussions before the sun enters the Chamber for it would
be very refreshing. If you go across the Channel, you will see that dogs are used to draw carts; but, although it has always been considered an unusual method of using dogs in this country, that is the principle on which this Bill is based.

Division No. 402.]
AYES.
[2.14 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Graves, Marjorie
Pybus, Sir John


Aske, Sir Robert William
Greene, William P. C.
Radford, E. A.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Ramsay T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Bernays, Robert
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Bossom, A. C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Boulton, W. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rickards, George William


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Howard, Tom Forrest
Runge, Norah Cecil


Burnett, John George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Jamieson, Douglas
Salt, Edward W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
John, William
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Ker, J. Campbell
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Cooper, A. Duff
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Copeland, Ida
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Somervell, Sir Donald


Critchley, Brig,-General A. C.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Soper, Richard


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Loftus, Pierce C.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Dagger, George
Mabane, William
Spens, William Patrick


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stones, James


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
McKie, John Hamilton
Storey, Samuel


Drewe, Cedric
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Strauss, Edward A.


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Magnay, Thomas
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Duggan, Hubert John
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Tree, Ronald


Edwards, Charles
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Melson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Morrison, William Shepherd
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Everard, Lindsay
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Munro, Patrick
White, Henry Graham


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Fox, Sir Gifford
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Wilson. Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Peake, Osbert
Womersley, Sir Walter


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pearson, William G.



Goff, Sir Park
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Sir George Penny and Mr. Blindell.




NOES.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Bragg)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Bateman, A. L.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Bracken, Brendan
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Smith, Torn (Normanton)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Clarry, Reginald George
Levy, Thomas
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Logan. David Gilbert
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
McGovern, John



Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Petherick, M
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hanley, Dennis A.
Pike, Cecil F.
Mr. Wise and Mr. Gurney Braithwaite.


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'eight' stand part of the Bill."

Sir J. GILMOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 136; Noes, 29.

The House divided: Ayes, 133; Noes, 30.

Boulton, W. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Radford, E. A.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G, T.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Burnett, John George
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Butt, Sir Alfred
Howard, Tom Forrest
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Rickards, George William


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A D.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Jamieson, Douglas
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cooper, A. Duff
John, William
Runge, Norah Cecil


Copeland, Ida
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Daggar, George
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salt, Edward W.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Loftus, Pierce C.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Drewe, Cedric
Mebane, William
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Duggan, Hubert John
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
McKie, John Hamilton
Soper, Richard


Edwards, Charles
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Magnay, Thomas
Spens, William Patrick


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Stones, James


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Storey, Samuel


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Strauss, Edward A.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Fox, Sir Gifford
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Morrison, William Shepherd
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Tree, Ronald


Gilmour, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Munro, Patrick
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Goff, Sir Park
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Graves, Marjorie
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Greene, William P. C.
Peake, Osbert
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Grimston, R. V.
Pearson, William G.
White, Henry Graham


Grundy, Thomas W.
Petherick, M.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Procter, Major Henry Adam



Hanley, Dennis A.
Pybus, Sir John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Sir George Penny and Mr. Blindell.




NOES.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Bateman, A. L.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Bracken. Brendan
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick.on-T.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Clarry, Reginald George
Levy, Thomas
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
McGovern, John
Wise, Alfred R.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)



Denville, Alfred
Pike, Cecil F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Mr. Logan and Captain Arthur Evans.

CLAUSE 6.—(Notices of and procedure with respect to, application for licences.)

2.30 a.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move in page 6, line 18, to leave out "adjoining district," arid insert:
district adjoining that county district or metropolitan borough.
This is a drafting Amendment to make the meaning of the Clause perfectly clear. As it stands in the Bill, we thought it might be wrongly thought that it must adjoin a particular track. It was intended that it must be adjoining a County district or Metropolitan Borough in which the track is situated.

2.31 a.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: The Home Secretary is good enough to tell us that this Amendment is merely drafting. I am not a lawyer and I find it difficult to understand precisely what a lot of words mean in the Clause, especially when it is proposed that they should be inserted at half-past two o'clock in the morning. I want to test this matter by the circumstances in that part of London in which I live. I live in Putney in the Borough of Wandsworth. I understand that in the constituency of Central Wandsworth there is one greyhound track. Adjoining the Borough of Wandsworth is the Borough of Hammersmith which contains a racing
track known as the White City Track. Adjoining Wandsworth on one side is the County Borough of Kingston, admirably represented by the hon. Baronet (Sir G. Penny) who recently took the wrong side on this issue. On the other side, we have the Borough of Barnes. I want to know precisely what is the position not if an application arises from the Borough of Wandsworth or of Hammersmith, neither of which are licensing authorities, but if an application is made to the County or Council of London, which is the licensing authority under the Act. What is the position in that event of the Borough of Kingston, where there is no racing track? Or of the County of Surrey, which is just as much concerned with the track in Wandsworth as the Borough of Hammersmith? It is a mile and a half to the track at Wandsworth, but there is a track in Wimbledon, a municipal borough in the County of Surrey.

Sir GEORGE PENNY (Comptroller of the Household): The answer is a lemon.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Baronet is an important personage in this House. He acts as one of the whips whose duty it is to lead us aright though at times he leads us astray. He gives us an answer which it would not be proper for me to quote and which I hope will not be recorded in to-morrow's OFFICIAL REPORT. The Home Secretary says this is merely a drafting Amendment, but I spent some considerable time after the last Division in trying to find out exactly what it meant. I want to know what are the rights of the Council in my constituency, which is a County Borough, in the matter of these appeals to the various local authorities in the neighbourhood where I live. Frankly, having read the words, I remain in a state of very considerable confusion. It may be my own fault, it may be the fault of the late hour, or it may be the fault of the inadequacy of the explanation given by the Home Secretary.

2.35 a. m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: However this matter may be viewed—and I think the explanation of the Home Secretary was very exiguous and lacking in clarity—it is perfectly clear that the point raised is due to carelessness in the preparation of the Bill. Why have we had to wait for these drafting Amendments to be introduced? We have been all through
the Committee stage, and why was it not put right before, seeing that it was an original error in the Bill? Here these words "adjoining district" which the House was invited to carry in the Committee stage are now found quite unsuitable. The right hon. Gentleman has explained that they might be thought to relate to a racing track, whereas they relate to municipal or other political boundaries drawn between different districts. How is it that this has previously escaped the attention of the Home Secretary? Does he not go through the Clauses with his draftsmen in the morning? It is an extraordinary thing that this sort of drafting Amendment should be introduced at the last minute? If the House had not examined the matter very carefully, I doubt if such Amendments would have ever been put in. When I looked at this matter in the first place before hearing the statement of the Home Secretary, I said that this was mere pedantry, and I asked myself: "Why is the House being kept up at this hour on such a nicety of language and what is the refinement of meaning to discriminate the one proposal from the other."
Now that we have heard the explanation, it seems to me much more than a drafting Amendment. It is an Amendment of substance which would never have been discovered but for the careful attention which the House has given to the matter. The omission seems to indicate a lower standard in the preparation of details than is customary. I fear the present generation of Ministers falls far short of former days. I remember being brought up in Opposition under the guidance of the late Lord Balfour and seeing how that great man prepared Bills, and the hours he used to spend with his draftsmen going through them systematically and cross-examining the draftsmen on every doubtful point so that when the Bill came before the House he was complete master of it. Here we have the right hon. Gentleman treating us rather harshly, and yet he says that these are mere drafting words. Every footprint he has left behind him to-night is a sign of inadequate attention to the task for which he has assumed the responsibility of guiding this House.

2.39 a.m.

Mr. LEVY: I listened to the explanation of my right hon. Friend and I
must say that I am very worried. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) certainly made it very difficult for me to understand the position I should be in as far as my own constituency is concerned. My constituency is a rather peculiar one geographically. It is very scattered and its geographical centre is a place called Halifax. You cannot travel from Halifax out to any part in any direction without going into any territory that is not in my division. In other words, my division consists of the outer circle with Halifax as the inner circle. Is it unreasonable that I should require some lucid explanation from the Home Secretary so that when any questions are raised, as they are bound to be raised, in my constituency I shall be able to answer them in a clear and concise manner? We have quite a number of local authorities in my division. I am not satisfied with the explanation that I have received. I want to be able to go into my constituency with a first-hand knowledge of the Bill. Then, in answering questions, I shall be able to say that I have received my information from the greatest living authority in regard to the measure.

Mr. J. JONES: Why not take a gramophone record?

Division No. 404.]
AYES.
[2.44 a.m.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth. Sutton)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Loftus, Pierce C.


Bane, Sir Adrian W. M.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Mabane, William


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Everard, W. Lindsay
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Bernays, Robert
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McKie, John Hamilton


Bossom, A. C.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Boulton, W. W.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Magnay, Thomas


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Making, Brigadier-General Ernest


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Goff, Sir Park
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Burnett, John George
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Butt, Sir Alfred
Graves, Marjorie
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Greene, William P. C.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Campbell. Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Grimston, R. V.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morrison, William Shepherd


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Munro, Patrick


Cooper, A. Duff
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Copeland, Ida
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Peake, Osbert


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Pearson, William G.


Dagger, George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Penny, Sir George


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Drewe, Cedric
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Pybus, Sir John


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Jamieson, Douglas
Radford, E. A.


Duggan, Hubert John
Ker, J. Campbell
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Edwards, Charles
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Mr. LEVY: I do not want at this early hour to detain the House; but I do hope that the Home Secretary will accede to my request and give us a more lucid explanation.

Sir J. GILMOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. SPEAKER collected the voices and stated that he thought that the Ayes had it.

Mr. McGOVERN: On a point of Order, I desire to ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland a question bearing on this matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, Order.

Mr. CHURCHILL: On a point of Order. Do I understand that you did not hear the Noes against the closure? We certainly cried "No."

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not hear any Member say "No."

Mr. CHURCHILL: With great respect, we called "No."

Mr. SPEAKER: I am prepared to call a Division if there were any Members who said "No."

The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 26.

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Rickards, George William
Somervell, Sir Donald
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Roshotham, Sir Thomas
Soper, Richard
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Runge, Norah Cecil
Spans, William Patrick
White, Henry Graham


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Stones, James
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Storey, Samuel
Womersley, Sir Walter


Salt, Edward W.
Strauss, Edward A.



Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Sir Victor Warrender and Mr. Blindell.


Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles





NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Bateman, A. L.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Bracken, Brendan
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Levy, Thomas
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Logan, David Gilbert
Wise, Alfred R.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
McGovern, John



Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Petherick, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fox, Sir Gifford
Pike, Cecil F.
Sir William Davison and Mr. Herbert Williams.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Question put accordingly, "That the words 'adjoining district' stand part of the Bill."

Division No. 405.]
AYES.
[2.53 a.m.


Bateman, A. L.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Bracken, Brendan
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Bragg)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Levy. Thomas
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on T.)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, s.)
McGovern, John



Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Pike, Cecil F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Wise and Mr. Bailey.




NOES


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, William Shepherd


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Graves, Marjorie
Munro, Patrick


Bernays, Robert
Greene, William P. C.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Grimston, R. V.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Boulton, W. W.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peake, Osbert


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pearson, William G.


Buchan-Hephurn, P. G. T.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Penny, Sir George


Burnett, John George
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Petherick, M.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pybus, Sir John


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Radford, E. A.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney,N.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cooper, A. Duff
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, T B. W. (Western Isles)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Dagger, George
Ker, J. Campbell
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rickards, George William


Denville, Alfred
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Drewe, Cedric
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Runge, Norah Cecil


Duggan, Hubert John
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Loftus, Pierce C.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Mabane, William
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Edwards, Charles
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Salt, Edward W.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McKie, John Hamilton
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Magnay, Thomas
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Making, Brigadier-General Ernest
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Soper, Richard


Fox, Sir Gifford
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

The House divided: Ayes, 21; Noes, 135.

Spens, William Patrick
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
White, Henry Graham


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Stones, James
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Storey, Samuel
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Strauss, Edward A.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)



Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Mr. Blindell and Major George Davies.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Discretion of licensing authority as to grant of licences.)

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir John Gilmour—

3.1 a.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman rises I beg to move, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
I venture now at three o'clock, when more than three hours have passed since the matter was put to you, Mr. Speaker, to submit again a Motion for adjournment. I venture, very respectfully, to suggest to you that if the Government would make some suggestion as to how they wish to proceed we might make progress. The Home Secretary told us that all he was thinking about were mere drafting Amendments. There is one on the Order Paper, but there are two other heavy Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr Logan). It is quite true that the Amendment which we are now about to consider may not take very long, but the other two are heavy Amendments, and I do suggest to the Home Secretary that we shall certainly have to go on all through to-morrow night. That is inevitable. Then we shall have the Third Reading coming on in the early morning hours of Wednesday. If the Home Secretary really is going to try to get these Amendments to-night, it will keep us here until morning, for we have some heavy work in front of us.
Would it not he possible to take now the Amendment which the Home Secretary says is purely drafting, and, having disposed of that, come back to-morrow, for many opinions have to be reconsidered and our energies re-created. The right hon. Gentleman would then have been able to discuss these matters with the Prime Minister—if he is available—or with the Lord President of the Council.
I do put it to the Government that they are not going to get anything out of this by taking these Amendments at about six
o'clock in the morning. On the other hand, I have not the slightest doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman said he would stop at the end of Clause 7 the House would endeavour to facilitate him in winding-up his business as quickly as possible. We are certainly not resisting all these points out of any feeling of faction at all. We are really trying to show the Government that they are getting in very great embarrassment in the country. That is why we are looking at all these points with such meticulous care. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will meet us.

3.5 a.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: In view of the nature of the Debate we have had on such trifling matters as the calendar year and the rest, when obviously time was taken, not upon the substance of Amendments, but in order to delay the proceedings—

Mr. CHURCHILL: On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman has no right to say that. I submit it has frequently been ruled unparliamentary to suggest that action has been taken to delay the proceedings. The hon. Member has no right whatever to say it and it is really intolerable at this late hour of the night.

Mr. SPEAKER: Was the right hon. Gentleman appealing to me?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes. I am complaining of the charge of deliberate dilatory conduct.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have heard these charges often made before.

Mr. FOOT: I am perfectly content for hon. Members who have not been present in the Debate to read to-morrow the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made upon that Amendment. I only hope the House will have regard to those who have not spoken in the discussion, but who have been here to assist in carrying the business through, and that they will have regard to the figures recently revealed in the Division lobby. We shall be quite content if the Home Secretary will adhere to his original intention of going on to Clause 22 so that
to-morrow there may be a reasonable opportunity to discuss the Bill on Third Reading.

3.7 a.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope the House will agree that the next two Government Amendments are not ones which will detain us at any great length. That will take us to Clause 16. I am not sure which Amendments the Chair proposes to call. There may be one other; but as these two Amendments deal with the same subject that will bring us to Clause 16 which was the point I had hoped the House would reach.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What about the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan)?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot say anything about that.

3.8 a.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: I desire also to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider his decision to go ahead. I want him to realise that many of us were not on the Committee and that the only opportunity we have to study this Measure and to understand what the Clauses mean is by full and open discussion in this House. I have sat here since four o'clock listening to almost every speech because I have desired to understand the Bill clearly. To suggest that there has been obstruction when there has been a desire only to express one's point of view and to understand the difficulties is certainly not playing cricket in my estimation. In appealing to the Home Secretary, and in replying to the statements made from the Liberal benches, I may say that I sat continuously in this House when the question of tariffs was before us and for hours I heard speeches made that I could only consider obstructive speeches of the very worst description. To say that on this Measure, on which we have only had a restricted opportunity of expressing our views, we have obstructed, is entirely wrong.
When the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) says that he has waited here without speaking in order to assist the Government to get the Measure through, I would remind him that I have heard of people hurrying their opponents to their doom, and, in my opinion, Liberal members are assisting the Govern-
ment to go to their doom by a Measure of this description. It is a most disgraceful thing that after fourteen weeks of recess the Government should come back to this House and make us sit up night after night in order to rush through legislation that is unnecessary and certanly not the will or desire of the country. I would appeal to them to give reconsideration to the point and not to drive the Bill through the House. I would appeal to them not to let the five or six Government whips stand outside the Lobby and look scornfully on the persons voting against the Government. It is a most disgraceful thing. I would appeal to the Home Secretary to adjourn now and to give fuller time for the examination of this very important Bill. He must realize that members are not in a fit state to examine every detail of the Bill. I dissociate myself from the Bill, and I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider the matter.

3.13 a.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I am anxious to facilitate business, but I have given many anxious days to a consideration of the Amendments that I have tabled, and I am anxious to see that justice is done to them. I submit that at this hour of the morning that justice cannot be done. I think that Members who have been sitting here since three o'clock yesterday afternoon cannot properly consider these Amendments, and it is an insult to the House to expect them to do so. Why is the Lord President of the Council not present? If he had been, I feel that counsel could have been taken in regard to some of these Amendments and that different decisions would have been taken. I have had for a long time nothing but "No" for an answer from the Home Secretary, which I put down to the fact that there is no responsible Minister here except the Minister in charge of the Bill. I feel too that the Prime Minister ought to be here, for, with all due respect to the Minister in charge, he ought to be able to turn to the Prime Minister for assistance. I feel that these important Amendments ought to receive due consideration from the House, and I hope that the Minister will give some justice to the claims that we are putting forward.

3.15 a.m.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: I hope the Minister will not 'accede to the
request. I hope he will not stop at Clause 22, but will go on and finish the Bill. We ought to begin to wake up at this hour of the night, and really every body now is fully alive to the importance of the Amendment and the principle put forward by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan). I think that

Division No. 406.]
AYES.
[3.16 a.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Graves, Marjorie
Procter. Major Henry Adam


Aske, Sir Robert William
Greene, William P. C.
Pybus, Sir John


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Grimston, R. V.
Radford, E. A.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Barclay Harvey, C. M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Bernays, Robert
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Blindell James
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Bossom, A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Boulton, W. W.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Rickards, George William


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Burnett, John George
Jamieson, Douglas
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salt, Edward W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cooper, A. Duff
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Copeland, Ida
Loftus, Pierce C.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lunn, William
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Mabane, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Daggar, George
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Soper, Richard


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
McGovern, John
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
McKie, John Hamilton
Spens, William Patrick


Denville, Alfred
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Drewe, Cedric
Magnay, Thomas
Stones, James


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Storey, Samuel


Duggan, Hubert John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strauss, Edward A.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Edwards, Charles
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Morrison, William Shepherd
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Munro, Patrick
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
White, Henry Graham


Fox, Sir Gifford
Nunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peake, Osbert



Goff, Sir Park
Pearson, William G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-




Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Bracken, Brendan
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Broadbent, Colonel John
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Levy, Thomas
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
McGovern, John
Wise, Alfred R.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Petherick, M.



Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Raikes Henry V. A. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Sir William Davison and Mr. Pike.

Question put accordingly, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."

Division No. 407.]
AYES.
[3.24 a.m.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hanley, Dennis A.


Bracken, Brendan
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Alton)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Broadbent, Colonel John
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

as the Debate has gone on so long we might finish it off.

Sir J. GILMOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 25.

The House divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 126.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Petherick, M.
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Levy, Thomas
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Logan, David Gilbert
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Wise, Alfred R.


McGovern, John
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)



Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tate, Mavis Constance
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)
Sir William Davison and Mr. Pike.




NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Greene, William P. C.
Radford, E. A.


Asks, Sir Robert William
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Bernays, Robert
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Blindell, James
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rickards, George William


Bossom, A. C.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Boulton, W. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jamieson, Douglas
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Burnett, John George
Ker, J. Campbell
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Salt, Edward W.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Cooper, A. Duff
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Copeland, Ida
Loftus, Pierce C.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Mabane, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Soper, Richard


Daggar, George
McKie, John Hamilton
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Spens, William Patrick


Denville, Alfred
Magnay, Thomas
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Drewe, Cedric
Making, Brigadier-General Ernest
Stones, James


Drummond Wolff, H. M. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Storey, Samuel


Duggan, Hubert John
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Edwards, Charles
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Morrison, William Shepherd
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Munro, Patrick
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Nunn, William
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Orr Ewing, I. L.
White, Henry Graham


Fox, Sir Gifford
Peaks, Osbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Pearson, William G.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Gilmour, Lt. Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Penny, Sir George
Womersley, Sir Walter


Goff, Sir Park
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.



Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graves, Marjorie
Pybus, Sir John
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward




and Major George Davies.

3.33 a.m.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, in page 7, line 25, after "Act," to insert:
or under the First Schedule to this Act.
My right hon. Friend said just now that these were largely drafting Amendments. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has said that he and I must share the blame, because this is consequential on Clause 6, which went through in the Committee stage. It was partly my fault not to have seen that it was inserted there. The right hon. Gentleman was not present when we discussed it, so he may share the blame too. In Clause 7 we are dealing with cases in which licences are refused and where an applicant has been convicted of any of the offences under the Act or with falsifying or other dishonesty. By error we
omitted the offences under Schedule 1, such as refusal to give full information regarding the working of the totalisators. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that a person who has done these things is not suitable to be given a licence to carry on either dog racing or a totalisator. It is only a drafting Amendment, but I may tell the House that the next Amendment in my right hon. Friend's name uses the same words for the same reason in the Clause dealing with the revocation of licences.

3.35 a.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I must admit that I stand rebuked by my hon. and gallant Friend. I think the remarks he has made about the slurring over of this point in the Committee stage—and he has frankly taken his share of the blame—are fully justified in so far as they cast
some aspersion on me. I was not in my place in the Committee stage. Indeed, I must confess that at that time I was not at all informed about the enormities which this Bill contains; otherwise I should have been in my place. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred to my absence, and I can only express to the House in terms of unaffected sincerity my extreme regret. In the meantime, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made this reproach on the private Member, and when it has been done in such a way as not to be offensive at all and when the Minister associates himself with the offence and in no way casts an invidious comparison as to the relative apportionment of the blame to be borne between us, I can assure him that, while I accept his reproof, I bear no malice and feel but little sting. What a lesson this should be to us all. Indeed, I am grateful to him. The hour is late, and at this time of the morning the human body flags and we are overcome by the strain and stress of the day, but it is at this very moment that a stern reminder of our duty is called for. Though the flesh may be weak, a double effort of the spirit may enable us to discharge the tasks which we have to perform.
This I say by way of preliminary to addressing myself, under the exhortations of my hon. and gallant Friend, to the very serious and complicated proposals which he makes in this Amendment. He proposes in this Amendment to make a penalty applicable not only to offences under the Clause, but to offences under the First Schedule, and to throw, therefore, incontinently into the area of discussion a whole series of minor delinquencies, all of which may be made the motive power and the fulcrum upon which the decision as to licences will turn. That is not a small matter. We have been talking of these great dog race tracks and how the Government are going to make a memorial by giving a Magna Charta to the totes. Some of them have cost an enormous sum of money to erect. The shareholders' money is invested in them, and not only the money of the proprietors and the general public is affected. The employés of these tracks are very numerous. We have been told that there are 30,000 employés in the dog racing
industry. Yet the refusal of a licence would automatically injure or ruin the whole of these powerful interests—capital and labour alike. Such a thing as the refusal of a licence when it comes up for periodical renewal would have the effect possibly of destroying the finances of a powerful company, it might be not only for a period of years, but they might never open again. Then the whole of the employés, who perhaps had moved into the district and had bought a house and sent their children to school in the area, would have all their educational and cultural careers interrupted suddenly and violently.
Let us see what are the kinds of offences which are concerned in this Amendment. It is all very well to say that these are only drafting Amendments and to try to get us to believe that it is not a serious matter. It is all very well of the right hon. Gentleman to show us by his silence that he is an honest man, for all the members of the Government excel in honesty, but a more candid course would be to make sure that we are not left to trip over and avoid dealing properly with points of this kind. Let me indicate some of the kinds of thing which this First Schedule deals with, and which might conceivably lead to conviction for an offence. If a man has been convicted under the First Schedule, then his licence may be revoked, and that enterprise, with all the consequential reactions which I have ventured to indicate, may be swept at a stroke from life into history. May I just ask my hon. and gallant Friend to look at the Schedule, the First Schedule, the provisions regulating the establishment of totalisators on race courses? Take paragraph 3, line 15. It reads as follows:
The operator shall before receiving any bets in connection with any race, past in a conspicuous position on the track a notice showing the minimum stake (hereinafter referred to as the 'betting unit') which will be accepted at the totalisator from persons betting on that race, and shall distribute or cause to be distributed the whole of the moneys staked on any race or races by means of the totalisator among the persons winning bets made by means of the totalisator on that race or those races, after deducting or causing to be deducted such percentage, not exceeding six per cent. as he may have specified in the said notice.
That is a very complicated procedure that this man has to carry out. He has to place the notice in a conspicuous
place. Suppose he puts it in a position which is not deemed to be conspicuous, and a court may decide that it was not conspicuous—and even justice may err. It is a thorough justification for a magistrate bringing down ruin, bankruptcy, squalor, and poverty on a man for an error. I read out what he had to do and how careful he had to be, and here is a point. Observe the next words in Clause 7, Sub-section (1, b):
Convicted of any offence under this Part of this Act or of any offence involving fraud or dishonesty.
These may just be ordinary, simple eases of negligence under which a conviction is obtained under this Bill.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The right lion. Gentleman is dealing with the regulations of this Bill in the Schedule; but it has nothing to do with the Amendment. The only offences covered by the Amendment are those under Section 7.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for that information, which I observed he obtained from under the Gallery [interruption]. Surely we are not going to be so delicate or pussyfooted as all that. I am glad he has got the information, but I am sorry he did not have it before. Now that we know where we are, let me address myself to Section 7 of the Schedule. It says:
The accountant and his technical adviser and their respective servants authorised in that behalf in writing may, at all reasonable times, enter the premises in which the totalisator is set up, and examine any part of the mechanism and test and watch the working thereof.
Now may I ask, in regard to this important passage, what is the offence that is being aimed at? As far as I can make out, this Section is merely permissive. Is the offence which you have in view the fact that they did not exercise their option to ask for information or, if they did ask for it, that obstruction was put in their way? Now I will turn to the next point. The Under-Secretary of State, when he is asked if it refers to the persons who fail to exercise their option or to persons who refuse to facilitate him in his duty, he gives no answer at all. It is not as if he is a Minister who is not glad to give information. When he has it, he is glad to give information. [Interruption.] When I have finished some of my hon. Friends
behind me will be able in the course of this debate to clear it up.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The right hon. Gentleman has been reading from the middle of the Section. If he had read the whole of it before he started his speech, he would have had the answer.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not want to mislead the House by making an imperfect quotation and I will certainly read it all:
Every person who—(a) obstructs the accountant or his technical adviser or any duly authorised servant of either of them in the exercise of any of the powers conferred upon him by this paragraph.
As I see it, that is an important extension of the penal Clauses and hon. Members have found it out only during the rigour of debate. Here it reads that if a person "obstructs the accountant or his technical adviser." If that is so plain, why did not the hon. and gallant Gentleman state it? I suppose he has not read it, or has forgotten it altogether. Paragraph (b) reads:
neglects or refuses to give to any such person as aforesaid any such information, or to produce to him any such document, as may have been called for by him in pursuance of this paragraph; or
And paragraph (c) reads:
knowingly gives to any such person as aforesaid any information which is false or misleading.
If a man knowingly gives information which is false and misleading, he partakes of that general fraud or dishonesty. I hope I am not wearying the House.

Viscountess ASTOR: We are spellbound.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am glad to know that the noble lady has returned rested and refreshed. I shall not attempt to dilate upon paragraph (c), because it is quite clear that that is covered by the terms of the paragraph which refers to offences involving fraud or dishonesty. It seems to me that the first two paragraphs, (a) and (b), only amplify what is brought out in the paragraph I have just read. He gets them both ways. They are beset with difficulties and legal pitfalls. Should these persons fall into error in the discharge of their complicated duties, the error will be held to be an offence, even although it does not involve any moral turpitude, even although they leave the court with no
stain upon their characters, no effect on their position in the world, on their social relations, or in their homes. All that is provided for by the words about fraud and dishonesty. Yet the fault, which is admitted to be one of error, to be one arising from the inevitable and in some way irremovable frailties and shortcomings of human nature, may be letting down these men's employers and their hapless fellow workers—indeed, ruin will be at once sudden and final.

3.55 a.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: After the speech of the right hon. Member the House must realise there is a very serious application of this Clause. The revelations of the right hon. Gentleman have left me in a very disturbed frame of mind as to the consequences entailed by it. There is the question of the obstructed accountant or his technical adviser. I would like to know how the man is to be obstructed. Does it mean physical obstruction or preventing him getting information of any kind? And then there is the question of who is the duly authorised servant. How are employés to know who are duly authorised servants? Will they have a uniform which will distinguish them as duly authorised servants of the State or of the accountant? Will there be any badge? There may be a person who comes to the dog track and demands information. The employé must know whether he is a, responsible person. I see no provision in the Bill for allowing the employé or servant to know the accountant or the technical adviser.
Then there is the point about obstructing or refusing to give any such information. What information will be desired in connection with the Clause? The employé is also to produce to him "any such documents". What documents will the accountant or his adviser desire to see? The document may not be available at the time. There is another matter. Who is to determine that the information is false and misleading The employé may not have the proper information, and may not intend to give false information, but the fact that he has given such information, which he believed to be correct, would be sufficient to have the company, the manager, and the proprietor haled before the court. They would be guilty of offences and liable to a fine not exceeding £50. This is a very
penal Clause to the people involved. The employé may be asked a simple question and may believe he is giving the proper information, not knowing that the person is an accountant. It might be found that the information was incorrect, with the result that the proprietor might be brought before the court. I think that this Bill is a serious way of dealing with the affairs of this country. The language is extremely loose. It has not the definiteness one might expect from responsible Ministers of the Crown. There will be two offences and two fines. The more we see of this Bill the more we realise the serious implications which the Schedule implies. I have never yet heard a lucid speech from the right hon. Gentleman or his assistant explaining what was really intended by this Clause and its penalties.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): The hon. Gentleman had better resume that argument on the Third Reading.

Mr. McGOVERN: I accept your advice, Sir, but at this time of the morning I am not quite my usual self, and that is all the more reason why the House should consider this matter. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us a better explanation of the language contained in these Clauses that are going to have these awful consequences? I suggest, even at this late hour, that this should be done. Hon. Members are tired after a long and exhausting sitting, and it is a bad strain on their nerves, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to treat the House with contempt, but to give it the proper information to which it is entitled in regard to these penalties. I am sure that if the House is satisfied that they are reasonable, the House will treat them fairly.

4.2 a.m.

Mr. RAIKES: I am horrified at the dangers to which perfectly innocent applicants may be exposed in consequence of the Schedule. They are very real dangers. The accountant, his technical advisers, and authorised servants may enter premises in which a tote is set up and may find there a perfectly innocent operator of the tote. It may be that some of the authorised servants will turn up in strange circumstances and may even be intoxicated. Supposing they are
and that the intoxicated authorised servants or the accountant or his technical advisers set hands on the plant belonging to the operator, and supposing they are obstructed by the terrified owner, what happens? Under the Schedule he becomes guilty of obstruction and is liable to a penalty. If he refuses to give to the accountant or his authorised servants any information, or if he produces no documents, he is done for. Human nature is fallible, and it might be that a perfectly innocent man might happen to forget where the documents were. He might have left them with his Nile, or they might have disappeared temporarily. Then if he gives wrong information, he can be brought up because he has neglected to give the proper information to the accountant, his Advisers or authorised servants. There, under (b), he can be deprived of his job.
Finally, we come to paragraph (c), and here again there is a danger. On the face of it, it looks perfectly simple, but anyone who knowingly gives to the accountant or his representatives false or misleading information can have his job taken away. These persons might arrive on the premises and on the unfortunate owner in a state of intoxication or madness, because madness comes strangely upon persons. What would

Division No. 408.]
AYES.
[4.7 a.m.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Bernays, Robert
Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, William Shepherd


Blindell, James
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Graves, Marjorie
Munro, Patrick


Boulton, W. W.
Greene, William P. C.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Grimston, R. V.
Nunn, William


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Burnett, John George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pearson, William G.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Penny, Sir George


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Copeland, Ida
Horsbrugh, Florence
Pybus, Sir John


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Howard, Tom Forrest
Radford, E. A.


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Dagger, George
Jamieson, Douglas
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Ker, Campbell
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Davies, Maj, Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Lamb, sir Joseph Quinton
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Denville, Alfred
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Drewe, Cedric
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rickards, George William


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Duggan, Hubert John
Loftus, Pierce C.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Duncan, James A.L.(Kensington, N.)
Mebane, William
Runge, Norah Cecil


Edwards, Charles
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McKie, John Hamilton
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Salt, Edward W.


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Magnay, Thomas
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Everard, W. Lindsay
Makin, Brigadier-General Ernest
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

happen? He might feel that it was necessary to get these persons away before they became really dangerous, and he might deliberately give false information. He might suggest that the documents they required would be found in their own homes. So he sends them back to their homes at the earliest possible moment. Again this unfortunate man can be had up because he has knowingly given to persons information which is false or misleading, although it had been given for the purpose of saving his own skin and saving these persons from follies which they would regret if they were in their more sober and saner moments. There is a fine of £50 on the unfortunate man, who will also lose his job, in spite of the common sense which has led him to safeguard his plant or documents and to send the lunatics who have come to see him home to bed. Therefore, I am grieved and pained that the Government should have taken up this attitude.

Sir J. GILMOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 23.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Strauss, Edward A.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Tate, Mavis Constance
White, Henry Graham


Somervell, Sir Donald
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Soper, Richard
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wilson, Lt Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)



Stones, James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Storey, Samuel
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (wallsend)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and




Captain Austin Hudson.




NOES.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Bracken, Brendan
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Levy, Thomas
Wise, Alfred R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Logan, David Gilbert



Davison, Sir William Henry
McGovern, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Petherick, M.
Mr. Raikes and Mr. Lennox Boyd.


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Pike, Cecil F.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Division No. 409.]
AYES.
[4.15 a.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Greene, William P. C.
Pybus, Sir John


Aske, Sir Robert William
Grimston, R. V.
Radford, E. A.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Bernays, Robert
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Blindell, James
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Bossom, A. C.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Rickards, George William


Boulton, W. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Burnett, John George
Jamieson, Douglas
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Salt, Edward W.


Cooper, A. Duff
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Copeland, Ida
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Critchley, Brig.-General A.
Loftus, Pierce C.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Mabane, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Daggar, George
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Soper, Richard


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
McKie, John Hamilton
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Denville, Alfred
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Drewe, Cedric
Magnay, Thomas
Stones, James


Drummond Wolff, H. M. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Storey, Samuel


Duggan, Hubert John
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strauss, Edward A.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Edwards, Charles
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Ward. Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Morrison, William Shepherd
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Munro, Patrick
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
White, Henry Graham


Fox, Sir Gifford
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Pearson, William G.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Penny, Sir George



Goff, Sir Park
Petherick, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Sir Frederick Thomson and


Graves, Marjorie
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Captain Sir George Bowyer.




NOES.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Hanley, Dennis A.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Bracken, Brendan
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Tate, Mavis Constance


Broadbent, Colonel John
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Levy, Thomas
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Logan, David Gilbert
Wise, Alfred R.


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
McGovern, John



Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Pike, Cecil F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Raikes and Mr. Lennox-Boyd.

The House divided: Ayes, 128; Noes, 22.

CLAUSE 11.—(Establishment of totalisators on dog racecourses.)

4.22 a.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I beg to move, in page 13, line 18, to leave out from "writing" to the end of the Clause, and to insert:
at the option of the said occupier of the track, his servant, or agent, to set up and keep any totalisator or any other form of mechanical betting, whether in a building or not, and/or to provide facilities for bookmakers either in conjunction with the aforesaid totalisator or mechanical form of betting, or separately as and when the said occupier of the track, his servant, or agent shall determine.
Perhaps it may be well that I should explain what this really means. Under the Bill you can now set up a totalisator, but it is essential that you should have the bookmaker. I have been a little bit puzzled to know whether the track belongs to the bookmaker, whether it belongs to the person who sets up the totalisator on the track, or whether it belongs to the man who built the track. I find that, so far as this Bill is concerned, I need have no fear of the "bookie". He is established as a man of repute. I find that there is a totalisator that can be operated. I find that some people on dog tracks wish to be where there is a totalisator operated. This Bill makes provision for the totalisator, legalising it and giving it a status which it never had before. I am told by some people that they prefer the bookmaker, and the management are in a quandary when that occurs as to how to suit their clients. In any form of business you cater for your public, and if they do not like it you are ruined. It would appear by this Bill that you build a track and you find a totalisator, and you must allow people to operate it if your clients want optional betting. If your clients want one or the other, you can adopt one or the other. Anyone who is operating a track in any part of this country has the right of operating a totalisator exclusive of bookmakers. If they feel that it is essential that the bookmakers should be on the ground, then, inclusive of the bookmakers, they should he able to operate it. If both are operated, then you are giving them every opportunity of having this piece of legislation enacted.
In my humble opinion this Bill should operate so that no injury is done to the bookmaker or to the management if the clients that frequent that track do not
want the "bookie." If the management want them, they will have to bring them in. If they have a totalisator, and if the public like the "bookie," he goes in and operates also. You may be able to get the public in agreement with the bookmaker. I am beginning to feel that somebody has the right to say, "This is mine. The Government have no right to interfere with me if I conduct my business in a right and proper manner." If the public make a demand for these things, then the management should supply them. If I had to run a business, I should not like the State to interfere. It may not be good Socialism, but it is good sound commonsense. This Bill does not concern the Labour party, and it is not a party question. I have the right to state plainly and honestly my views on this matter. There is not an hon. Member on these benches who has not the right to speak according to his conscienece, and I am saying what I feel according to my conscience. It is only fair and right that the Minister should take cognizance of what is being moved. I have heard many Amendments moved, but in response I have heard nothing but "Hear, hear" and "No, no." That is not a proper way in which to treat Amendments which are seriously brought before this House and are calculated to give facilities for proper business arrangements, not only to the British public, but to track owners and bookmakers also. Here we go, on and on, and on and up, and up and up.

4.32 a.m.

Mr. PIKE: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so although I am not wholeheartedly in agreement with some of the things said by the mover. My reason for seconding it is that I can see the very grave danger arising from the Clause as it stands. I mentioned the other day, in the course of the proceedings on this Bill, that so many weaknesses existed in the Bill that there would be openings for certain track managements or occupier-ships to attempt to use the totalisator as a weapon for getting bookmakers out or clearing them from the dog tracks. The more I look into the subject, the more I am convinced that that is true. The totalisator will operate under these six per cent. rake-off conditions, and unquestionably bookmakers will be in a
position which prevents them entirely—with the attractiveness of the totalisator and the imagination of the people who are likely to bet on it—from enjoying the conditions of fair competition with the machine. The result will be that there will be concerted action on the part of the bookmakers to say that if this is something to which the Government have given their consent, then the only way to overcome the power of the totalisator in fair competition with them will be for a party of bookmakers to be organized for the specific purpose of standing up on racing nights and laying odds of 2½, 3 or 4 per cent. over whatever odds are returned by the totalisator on every race on the track during the evening.

Mr. T. SMITH: They will never do it.

Mr. PIKE: I do not believe in any such word as "never." All things are possible. I never should have thought that the Government were capable of introducing a Bill of this description, but I was wrong. My opinion is that this Clause, as it stands, will give rise to antagonisms as between the bookmaking fraternity and those who own the totes, with the result that the occupier of the track, being very interested financially and otherwise in the operation of tote machines, will organize some specific opposition to the bookmakers as such, and in consequence applications will be made for their permission to deny the right to bookmakers entering the course. If this Bill is intended to create a basis of equilibrium as between the bookmaker and the tote, the words of the Amendment should be inserted. After all, no one wants to see the tote tried at the expense of the exclusion of the bookmakers, because if that is the intention of the Government, the Bill will fail even more rapidly than under any other circumstances. The Amendment does at least give power to the occupiers of the tracks to determine for themselves and to state whether they want bookmakers, hand-operated machines, or other tote machines.
I am not inclined to agree that all these things are actually working in the general interests of sport. The Amendment does give power to the occupier who will be responsible for the good conduct of the track to choose, on the advice of the patrons of the track, what medium of betting is most likely to be popular. I
do not believe there is any other authority in a better position to decide that issue, and that is why I join in supporting this very reasonable Amendment. I admit that it is not a Labour question or a party question. Anything that could possibly create an equilibrium as between one form of labour and another or between one form of private profit and another should never be decided as a Labour party issue. If the Home Secretary could see his way to accept the Amendment, it would considerably improve the working the Clause.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask exactly what the hon. Member means when he states that he would be opposed to excluding bookmakers from the tracks? Then he states that the occupiers of a track should have the power to prevent them from entering.

Mr. PIKE: I said that I should be opposed to any occupier being placed in a position which, by virtue of financial interests of his own, would empower him to exclude another body against these interests. This Amendment does not do anything of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

4.40 a.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I confess I have some difficulty in understanding some of the objects of the hon. Gentleman in moving this Amendment. It is quite clear that the Amendment, if it were accepted, would permit an owner or occupier to put up a totalisator, but it gives him no power to operate it, which is perhaps a slightly necessary condition. It also makes mention of some other form of mechanical betting for which neither the Mover nor the Seconder has vouchsafed any information. This is an effort to do what I understand has been done in some cases, in which the interested parties have deliberately excluded certain bookmakers from the course. In fact, this gives complete powers to exclude bookmakers altogether, and since our scheme has been most carefully drawn in order to hold an absolutely fair balance between both forms of betting, of course we cannot accept this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 16.—(Revocation of licences.)

Captain CROOKSHANK: I beg to move, in page 16, line 42, after "Act," to insert:
or under the First Schedule to this Act.
I said on a previous Amendment that this would be the very same discussion over again, except that in Clause 16 it was a question of making a reference to the Schedule.

4.43 a.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I take it that it is to the same section of the Schedule that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring. I think that the House has very grave reason to complain, for it imposes again a savage penalty. This Bill is filled with savage penalties, and it imposes a maximum penalty and subjects all offences to the same penalties. For instance, obstructing an accountant or a technical adviser is liable to a fine of £50, and under paragraph (c) a person who
knowingly gives to any such person as aforesaid any information which is false or misleading 
is also liable to a fine of £50. This is grotesque and misleading. I think this is one of the most demoralising Statutes, from the criminal law point of view, that has ever been attempted to be placed on the Statute Book. It has always been an axiom of British criminal law that the penalty should fit the crime, and to put down a large fine and to say it does not apply to small things is bringing the criminal law into contempt. The Home Secretary, in bringing in this Amendment, is trifling with the House.

4.45 a.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I want to raise a point of substance, namely, the fact that Clause 11, Sub-section (3), reads as follows:

Division No. 410.]
AYES.
[4.49 a.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Denville, Alfred
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Drewe, Cedric
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Duggan, Hubert John
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Bernays, Robert
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Blinded, James
Edwards, Charles
Howard, Tom Forrest


Bossom, A. C.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)


Boulton, W. W.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
James, Wing Com. A. W. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jamieson, Douglas


Burnett, John George
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Ker, J. Campbell


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fox, Sir Gifford
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cooper, A. Duff
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Copeland, Ida
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Loftus, Pierce C.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Goff, Sir Park
Mabane, William


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Graves, Marjorie
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Daggar, George
Greene, William P. C.
McKie, John Hamilton


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Grimston, R. V.
McLean, Major Sir Alan

"The provisions of the First Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to every totalisator operated in pursuance of this section on a licensed track being a dog racecourse, and if any person operating a totalisator on such a track contravenes, or fails to comply with, any of the provisions of that Schedule not being a provision failure to comply with which is punishable under that Schedule, he shall be guilty of an offence."

What I am not clear about is that Clause 16, Sub-section (1, d) refers to where a manager is convicted under Part I of the Act. I am not clear as to whether the reference to Clause 11, Sub-section (3) is, as it stands, an offence under this Part of the Act or the Schedule. If it is an offence under this Part of the Act, then obviously the Amendment we are now discussing is not. If this is an offence under the First Schedule, then the points which the hon. and gallant Gentleman discussed on Clause 7 were of a narrow aspect because of the paragraphs of the Schedule from 1 to 11. I shall be glad if one of the Law Officers will tell us the effect of this.

Captain CROOKSHANK: As I understand it, the case is this, that Subsection (3) of Clause 11 deals with all the Schedules. Offences such as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) described are covered by that Sub-section (3) of Clause 11. The offences under Section 7 of the Schedule are not offences under Sub-section (3) of Clause 11.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 19.

Magnay, Thomas
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Stones, James


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Storey, Samuel


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Strauss, Edward A.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Rickards, George William
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Morrison. William Shephard
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Munro, Patrick
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Salt, Edward W.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Pearson, William G.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
White, Henry Graham


Penny, Sir George
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Petherick, M.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)



Procter, Major Henry Adam
Somervell, Sir Donald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Radford, E. A.
Soper, Richard
Captain Sir George Bowyer and




Sir Walter Womersley.




NOES.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Tate, Mavis Constance


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Todd, Lt Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Levy, Thomas
Wise, Alfred R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
McGovern, John



Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Pike, Cecil F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Sir William Davison and Mr. Herbert Williams


Hanley, Dennis A.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.



Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

4.53 a.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I beg to move, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."

4.50 a.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: On that Question, it may be convenient that we should hear from the Government a little more of the intentions they have for the conduct of this Measure. A great many people will have to make their arrangements, if they can. It will be for the public convenience that a statement should be made as to whether the Government intend in the sitting to-morrow to take, not only the Report stage, but the whole of Part II and Part III, which are also full of controversial points. Do they then intend to take the Third Reading? They cannot blame us for the Third Reading being put off to a very inconvenient time. We have got, with much toil and pain, to the point prescribed. The Home Secretary has got his Clause 16, and I hope he enjoys it. If the remaining stages of this Bill, and the Third Reading, cannot be taken at a reasonable time I hope the right hon. Gentleman will think the matter over before we meet again. Either he should drop Part II of the Bill, or he should let the Third Reading be taken on Thursday, on the day following the discussion on the depressed areas. I understand that it would not be possible to
closure the Debate on the Third Reading if we came to it after 11 o'clock. At that time the Debate is entitled to run. I think that this House will debate the Bill at great length on the Third Reading, if it is taken in the early hours. It would be important to the country that a large part of the discussion should take place during the hours of daylight when the public was here.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has had a marvellous success—I hardly remember a more signal success—through the tact, adroitness, and grasp of his speeches. He has had the aid of the patronage Secretary. Having been victorious and trampled on his enemies, he may be more yielding. He may be content with the remaining part of the Report stage without Part II, or, if he insists on going through with the whole Bill, he may give part of Thursday to that. If he would give us three or four hours on Thursday, I have no doubt we should arrange to finish at a reasonable hour to-morrow night. If not, we shall simply have to go on fighting as well as we possibly can in order to prove to the country the injury which is being done.

5.1 a.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Before the Home Secretary replies to that very fervent appeal, I suggest that, after having been here for 13 hours, it would be a scandal if the right hon. Gentleman undid the
agreement already entered into with the Opposition with regard to the discussion on the distressed areas. That provided Wednesday and any time available on Thursday after the ordinary business, excluding the betting business, had been disposed of. While I am very anxious to see this Bill disposed of, no one can deny that a goodly portion of the last 13 hours has been spent, not so much in discussing the Bill, as in discussing the evils which are to come to the National Government if it is passed. Those of us who have sat throughout the debate constitute a very formidable majority and represent by our votes the feelings of the Royal Commission. It would be a scandal if this vast majority of the House at this late hour were to be chivvied into a change of business, and I hope that the Patronage Secretary will see that there is no suspension of the Rule to-morrow night and that both the Report stage and Third Reading will be taken to-morrow.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is in error in supposing that it is possible to closure the Third Reading as well as to conclude the Report stage.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I can only suggest that although the right hon. Gentleman may have been a meticulous student of certain Amendments on the Order Paper, he cannot have studied the Amendments which stand over as part of the Report stage. I do not think he will suggest that those which have yet to be dealt with can occupy so large a time. I am sure if he were sitting on the Treasury Bench and we or any other hon. Member were to suggest that these four Amendments should occupy a large part of the day, he, with that wonderful flourish of his, would simply ridicule us. I hope the Patronage Secretary will bear in mind not so much the 19 hon. Members who have gone into the Division Lobby as the 120 who have stayed here all night.

5.4 a.m.

Sir J. GILMOUR: All I can say at this stage is that I have taken note of what has been said. I cannot agree that with the number of Amendments remaining on the Report stage, there should be any grave necessity why we should not enter on the Third Reading to-morrow—that is, to-day—at a reasonable time. I hope the good sense of the House will agree to that.

5.5 a.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: The hon. Member opposite spoke about some consideration being given to those who had supported the Government. Who are they? They are the Socialists and the Liberals. Surely some consideration ought to be shown to the Conservative followers of the (Government. If we are a small band to-night, we are not small in the country, and the country will remember it of the Government which forced this unpopular Measure through the House in the early hours of the morning and the few Members who tried to stand up for the liberties of the country when the Liberals and Labour supporters forced Amendments through the House.

Question, "That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned", put, and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Six Minutes after Five o'Clock a.m.